Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENERGY

Offshore Supplies Office

Dr. Godman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to increase the staffing and extend the role of the Offshore Supplies Office; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I shall continue to ensure that the Offshore Supplies Office is sufficiently staffed to enable it to fulfil its important role.

Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that the role and staffing of the OSO should be increased over the next few years to deal with what will be the Petroleum Act? Is the Minister satisfied with the OSO's role in securing contracts for United Kingdom companies? Naturally, I am primarily concerned with the fortunes of Scott Lithgow.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I pay tribute to the staff at the OSO who are hard-working and dedicated, and who are ensuring that British industry has a full and fair opportunity to win orders. I expect that for 1986, United Kingdom firms will have gained more than 80 per cent. of the orders available. That demonstrates the success of its work. I want that to continue, as I know the hon. Gentleman does. I am grateful to him for what he said.

Mr. Rowlands: Given the admission by the Government that 20,000 jobs have been lost in the oil industry in the last 12 months or more, and given the awful announcement today of the loss of highly skilled jobs at Huntings, one of our most internationally renowned consultancies, should the Government not be bringing forward more positive measures to stimulate development and exploration of the North sea, instead of this misplaced confidence and attitude that the Minister has shown today?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not appear to have noticed that there has been a substantial drop in the price of oil, which has a great effect on the industry. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not acknowledge that.
The situation is difficult at the moment because of the drop in the price of oil. The hon. Gentleman has also overlooked the fact that at the end of last year we improved the industry's cash flow by some £300 million through the early repayment of advance petroleum revenue tax. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that action has been taken.

Oil and Oil-Related Construction Activity

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the current level of oil and oil-related construction activity in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The total contract tonnage associated with current developments on the United Kingdom continental shelf which has been awarded to United Kingdom construction yards, is around 200,000 tonnes. That construction work takes place over a period of time related to each project schedule.

Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply, but may I underline—I know that he is very conscious of this—the extremely depressing effect that the oil slump has had on construction-related activity in the Highlands? Will his Department be sympathetically disposed towards accepting evidence from, for example, the Highland regional council as to the related impact which the regional development cuts have had on the oil-related construction


sector in the Highlands, which has acted as a double blow against it, and which also underlines the need for further tax concessions in the forthcoming Budget?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Highland regional council has been in touch with my Department and I am sensitive to what the hon. Gentleman says. In my own area, Grampian regional council has said the same thing. Both councils have taken the opportunity of giving evidence to the Select Committee on Energy which is looking into these problems. I accept that there are much wider repercussions to the economy of these areas, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of the problems and shares my concern.

Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an update of onshore exploration and development, particularly that which is related to sensitive areas of the south of England?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Onshore activity has continued and there was considerable interest in the first onshore licensing round. It provides opportunities for smaller British firms to get involved, but I know that my hon. Friend acknowledges that, as I have said previously, any activity is strictly controlled under planning legislation and environmental considerations are involved. That must be right.

Nuclear Power Stations

Mr. Jack Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the Government's long-term policy towards nuclear power stations; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have received a number of letters, principally in relation to Sizewell B.

Mr. Thompson: The Secretary of State's response was very brief. Bearing in mind the fact that since the publication of the Sizewell B report, the chairman of the CEGB has said that he wants to press ahead with nuclear power stations in other parts of Britain, will the right hon. Gentleman carefully consider the folly of the proposition that a group of nuclear power stations should be built on a coastal strip of Northumberland, adjacent to a profitable and extensive coalfield and close to a coal-fired power station, which is owned by the CEGB and is ripe for coal-fired development?

Mr. Walker: From the statements by the CEGB chairman that I have seen, I know that he has mentioned the board's interest in new coal-fired stations. However, I have received only an application for Sizewell B and that is the only one on which I can comment.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a PWR is urgent and would be competitive and timely as the only power station that is likely to be commissioned before 1995 when it will be required?

Mr. Walker: I cannot comment on such matters until I have made a decision on Sizewell B.

Mr. Dormand: Will the Secretary of State go further than he went in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and address himself to the unemployment problem in the north-east? Productivity is greater than ever in our coalfield and it would be a suitable

place for a coal-fired power station. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that it would be cheaper to build and run a coal-fired station than a nuclear power station.

Mr. Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I cannot comment on his final point until I have made a decision on the report that I have received. I believe that the coal industry in the north-east has considerable importance for the future and I am pleased that the enterprise company is bringing new jobs to the region. I hope that that will be on an ever-increasing scale. I am certainly aware of the unemployment dimensions of the problem.

Dr. Michael Clark: Among all the representations about the future of nuclear power, has my right hon. Friend received any that point out the need to conserve hydrocarbon fuels, particularly as they will be chemical feedstocks in the future and will be a source of man-made fibres, fertilisers and plastics, as well as premium fuel for aviation use?

Mr. Walker: I have received representations on almost every aspect of energy and every possible use of energy. The factors mentioned by my hon. Friend deserve careful consideration.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State mentioned that the CEGB has been talking about new coal-fired power stations. Will he comment on reports in the press and elsewhere that the Treasury is very much opposed to that type of development?

Mr. Walker: I read with amazement the newspaper report that a debate was taking place between the Treasury and myself. No such debate was taking place.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As the CEGB will be applying later this year to build a PWR at Hinkley Point in Somerset, will my right hon. Friend ensure that, while safety requirements must be rigorous, the planning inquiry will be more narrowly focused and that it will take less than a year to reach a conclusion?

Mr. Walker: As I have not been informed of any such application by the CEGB, I cannot comment on it. I know that people in Somerset or any other area will want the proper planning considerations to take place, and that should be done within a limited time scale, which gives enough time for objectors, but does not delay important decisions.

Dismissed Miners (Review)

Mr. Eadie: asked the Secretary of State for Energy if the chairman of British Coal has kept him informed about the results of his review of cases involving dismissed miners; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): On 8 September 1986, the chairman of British Coal announced a final internal review that would look at all outstanding cases of alleged unfair dismissal arising from the National Union of Mineworkers strike. The result of that review is not yet available, although I understand it is now nearing completion.

Mr. Eadie: Since it was in October last year that the chairman of British Coal promised a review of the cases of the dismissed miners, is it not time that we knew the results of that review? Is the Minister aware that, despite


the fact that the strike has been over for two years, 113 Scottish miners are still dismissed? Is the Minister aware that the dispute will never be over until justice is seen to be done and these men from all over the country are reinstated?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the dismissal and re-employment of employees is a matter for British Coal. Indeed that would be the case with any employer. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, of the 1,014 members dismissed as a result of that tragic and unnecessary strike, over half have been taken back. I plead with the hon. Gentleman for one moment to lift up his eyes from his normal Scargill brief and to recognise that the barriers to progress, which have been built up over the years by negative attitudes and entrenched by restrictive practices, are coming down all over the coal industry. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that the only power left to Arthur Scargill appears to be the control that he exercises over the Labour party's energy policy.

Mr. Hannam: When discussing coalfield manning will my hon. Friend congratulate the chairman of British Coal on the acceptance by the South Wales miners at Margam, as a result of their vote last Thursday, of the six-day shift system? Has my hon. Friend noted that that vote took place exactly two years to the day after the end of the coal strike?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a far better topic of conversation with the chairman of British Coal would be the important meeting on Margam. My hon. Friend is right that that vote took place exactly two years to the day after the tragic and unnecessary strike.
The industry has moved on and I wish that Opposition Members would recognise that. The industry has moved away from the political strikes of the past and from the negative, confrontational style of Arthur Scargill and towards the most positive attitude to productivity ever seen by the nation.

Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Minister agree that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was less than helpful? Our concern is for miners who have been dismissed— in some cases for reasons that would not have warranted dismissal in normal circumstances. Some of the cases for dismissal result from stealing a bit of coal and the Minister and I would have done that if we had found ourselves in similar circumstances. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members would not have done, they have forgotten their marriage vows. Does the Minister agree that it would be a good stroke for industrial relations to make a magnanimous gesture in these cases?

Mr. Hunt: As well as hoping that the hon. Gentleman will regret some of his words, I wish to make it clear that what I was protesting about is that Opposition Members are aware that these are matters for British Coal and that a review is being carried out. Over half the miners concerned have already been taken back. It is not a matter for Ministers.

Mr. Pollock: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Coal will he take the opportunity to congratulate, through him, the management and the work

force on achieving record levels of productivity? Surely, it is that productivity that offers a better prospect of security and continuity of employment for the work force?

Mr. Hunt: I believe that the enthusiasm and determination of the men and management in pushing through the new productivity records will take the industry into a stable and viable future. It will ensure good markets and job security.

North-East Leicestershire Coalfields

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he last discussed the development of the north-east Leicestershire coalfields with the chairman of the Coal Board.

Mr. Hunt: My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with the chairman of British Coal to discuss all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that pits in northwest Leicestershire are closing down rapidly and that it is vital that new pits are opened in north-east Leicestershire? There has been exploration and an inspector's report approving a pit additional to Asfordby. Will the new pits be opened in time to preserve the jobs and the work of the excellent Leicestershire coal miners?

Mr. Hunt: I understand that British Coal is still considering the future of the rest of the Belvoir coalfield, and it is for it to assess the relative attractions of potential investment projects. British Coal is discussing a six-day shift in south Wales and the good news is that discussions have been going on with the trade unions on mulit-shift workings at Asfordby. If the discussions reach a successful conclusion, the mine will be uprated to production of 3·5 million tonnes a year and the number of jobs available will be in excess of 1,500.

Mr. Ashby: Will my hon Friend give priority to the south Leicestershire coalfield miners, who have endured a number of job losses and worked in extremely difficult circumstances? They are known to be some of the best miners in the country. I ask my hon. Friend to recall that in the south midlands coalfield production is at a record level. The miners in this area would be a tremendous enchancement to the mining industry if they were kept on and given priority for jobs within the Leicestershire coalfield.

Mr. Hunt: Decisions on the manning of these pits must be a matter for British Coal. My hon. Friend is right to recognise the men's tremendous effort in his area— in Leicestershire and in the south midlands. These successes are being built on as we move from one productivity record to another, and that must be the best possible news for the future.

Mr. Orme: I wish to support the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for further development in this area of the mining industry. I visited it recently and it was impressed upon me that the original decision was that there should be three pits in the area. Can the Minister give an assurance that development will take place very soon in north-west Leicestershire?

Mr. Hunt: These are matters for British Coal. I am pleased to hear that Asfordby is on schedule and that the


upcast shaft and the downcast shaft are now 300m and 180m down, on schedule, on cost and within budget. There is also the important development of south Warwickshire, where I understand tha discussions are proceeding on multi-shift working.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Does my hon. Friend agree that, bearing in mind the needs of the Leicestershire miners, it would make more sense to develop the Witham coalfield in Nottinghamshire, which is adjacent to the present site of West Burton power station, and will also be the site of the next coal-fired power station in Britain?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on the last part of his supplementary question. As for the first part, I shall pass his remarks to the chairman of British Coal—[Interruption.] I remind Opposition Members as they heckle me, that productivity measured by output per man shift fell each year under the previous Labour Government, compared with a 4 per cent. per annum improvement envisaged in "Plan for Coal". We have seen record productivity under this Government.

Mersey and Severn Barrages

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what meetings he has had on a regular basis with interested bodies concerning the Mersey and Severn barrage schemes.

Mr. David Hunt: My colleagues and I have met representatives of the Severn tidal power group and the Mersey Barrage Company. It is my right hon. Friend's policy to ensure that the organisations carrying out these studies consult fully all interested bodies.

Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that neither of the bodies to which he has referred has an obligation to consider the environmental impact of the schemes, despite both areas being of international wildlife significance? Will he take steps to establish appropriate advisory bodies to ensure that research takes place? Will he give an undertaking now to continue formally to consult the voluntary organisations, which have already expressed their concern about the environmental impact of the schemes?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman that environmental studies are recognised as an essential feature of barrage studies and that a significant proportion of the present expenditure on the two estuaries will be devoted to environmental studies. Full environmental appraisals will not be possible, especially for the Severn, until a decision is made to progress the scheme beyond the scope of the present studies.

Mr. Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents in west Gloucestershire on the banks of the river Severn accept his undertaking to consult all the interested bodies as being thoroughly responsible? We are concerned not only with the environmental aspects, but with the full impact of the cost of construction, since the Severn barrage could be one of the most expensive civil engineering projects ever undertaken.

Mr. Hunt: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to other right hon. and hon. Friends who have pressed my ministerial colleagues and I on what I believe is one of the widest work programmes and consultation arrangements that the country has ever seen into what is, after all, one of the most promising of our renewable energy resources.

Mr. Corbett: I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies). Can the Minister say what timescale is involved in taking a decision, particularly on the Severn barrage? To my knowlege, the decision-making has been going on for about 30 years. The proposal presents a viable alternative to the further development of the nuclear energy programme which will not provide anywhere near as many jobs as the Severn barrage scheme stands a chance of providing.

Mr. Hunt: Without commenting on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we are seeing remarkable progress on both the Severn and Mersey barrages. Indeed, I heard only last week that the Mersey barrage studies are well ahead of schedule and part I of the study is expected to be finished later this year. On the Severn barrage, we are now in the midst of a two-year programme, jointly funded by the Severn tidal power group, the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Department. I have every optimism that the studies will be completed ahead of schedule.

Nuclear Power Industry (Accidents)

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many fatal accidents there have been in the civil nuclear power industry in the United Kingdom in the last 10 years; and what was the number of fatalities.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): There were 10 accidents, each involving one death, in the 10 years to February 1987. None involved radiation.

Mr. Chapman: Although one fatality is one too many will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures that he has given the House compare favourably with accidents in other major energy-conversion industries? For example, will he confirm that in the coalmining industry the figure is over 300, and does he agree that safety is an important factor in assessing how we meet our energy demands in the future?

Mr. Goodlad: I note what my hon. Friend says. He is correct that there were, sadly, 388 fatal accidents in the coal industry in the 10 years to 1985. The Government and the nuclear industry are fully conscious of the importance of both site and environmental safety, and the industry's record in that respect is excellent.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that the figures—I do not challenge their accuracy in any way—are totally misleading? A fatality in the mining industry is a tragedy for the individual concerned and his family, but it is totally unlike incidents in the nuclear power industry which have implications for the local community and society at large? There is no relevant comparison between figures.

Mr. Goodlad: The important point is that the industry is conscious of its safety responsibilities.

Mr. Yeo: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will keep in mind the importance of maintaining the excellent safety record when he arrives at his decision on the possibility of constructing Sizewell B? Will he assure the House that approval for Sizewell B will be given only if his Department is satisfied that there is every prospect of maintaining the safety record?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister confirm that all information relating to the Windscale fire in 1957 has now been published and will he accept that one of the problems for the supporters of nuclear power, such as myself, is that the industry is clouded in a cloak of secrecy? If we could remove that secrecy I believe a majority of the British people would wholeheartedly support its development.

Mr. Goodlad: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is correct to say that full publication has been made of the details relating to the Windscale fire. I agree that openness on the part of the industry is extremely important and I believe that the industry is very open with information. All incidents at nuclear installations, however minor, must be reported by law to the nuclear installations inspectorate. Any incident that might give rise to a significant radiological hazard, either to the public or to a member of staff, is also promptly notified to Ministers. The details of all significant incidents are published regularly by the Health and Safety Executive.

Shetland Islands

Dr. Michael Clark: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how much oil has so far been brought ashore to the Shetland Islands; and if he will make a statement about the future involvement of the Shetlands in North sea oil development.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Up to the end of 1986 the total amount of crude oil brought ashore to the Sullom Voe terminal was 351·6 million tonnes. There is continuing opportunity for the Shetlands.

Dr. Clark: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will be aware that the Select Committee on Energy recently visited the Shetland Islands. Will he acknowledge the co-operation that the Shetland Islands have given the North Sea oil companies over recent years? Will he also ensure that his Department does all that it can to let the companies that have business in the North sea know that they will be welcome in the Shetland Islands, so that the expertise and technology that has been built up there can be used to full advantage?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. The Shetlands have some good facilities, not only at Sullom Voe, which I mentioned in my answer, but in the Lerwick base and at Sumburgh airport. In the longer term, the geography of the Shetlands is such that they could find themselves strategically placed for developments in the northern North sea or in the area to the west of the Shetlands where prospecting is taking place.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister of State acknowledge that one should be wary in the House and elsewhere of speaking for the Shetland islanders because they are pretty good at speaking for themselves? Does he concede that one of the things to which he should turn his mind, with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, is the ring fence arrangement for taxation in the North sea, so that development for satellite fields can be assessed as new development to step up the rate of activity both east and west of the Shetlands and in the North sea as a whole?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Having for many years had dealings with the Shetlanders on fisheries and oil and gas

matters, I believe that no one respects more than I do the independence of the Shetlanders, but, so far as I am aware even the Shetlanders have not claimed a ring fence for those islands.

Mr. Wallace: It may not necessarily follow from the Minister's departmental responsibility, but does he accept that the reform of local government finance will have an important influence on future oil developments in the Shetlands, not least on the terminal at Sullom Voe? Has his Department been in touch with the Scottish Office on the importance of that, the necessity for the arrangements that will follow from the changes to the non-domestic rate, and any implications for possible pooling of non-domestic rates?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I hope that, like the rest of the House, he will welcome the interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford (Dr. Clark) showed following the enterprising visit by the Select Committee on Energy to those islands. I very much welcome the interest taken in the House in the important role played by the Shetlands in the economy as a whole, particularly in relation to oil.

Coal-Fired Power Stations

Mrs. McCurley: asked the Secretary of State for Energy how many applications for the construction of coal-fired power stations have been submitted to hint or his predecessors by the generating boards since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Peter Walker: No applications for coal-fired stations have been made by the CEGB since May 1979, although for much of the period since then the largest coal-fired station in western Europe has been under construction at Drax. It was completed last year to time and budget at a cost of some £900 million.

Mrs. McCurley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. As he has given us assurances that the Treasury will not interfere in any approvals that his Department gives for the construction of coal-fired or, indeed, nuclear power stations, can he also give an assurance about the conversion from oil-fired to coal-fired stations, especially now that the oil-fired station at Inverkip desperately needs that conversion, and needs it quickly?

Mr. Walker: I note my hon. Friend's remarks. On no occasion in my ministerial life have I ever, alas, been able to say that the Treasury will not interfere in anything. I can only say that no discussion or debate is going on between myself and the Treasury on those matters because only one application is before us. Conversion schemes or any other application by the CEGB will be carefully and quickly considered.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: When the Secretary of State is considering alternative forms of power generation, will he bear in mind that there is a very wide consensus of support for coal-fired power stations and that the power generating industries that make and design much of the power station equipment for nuclear and other types of power generation can also generate jobs and wealth in designing and commissioning a coal-fired power station?

Mr. Walker: I am well aware of that. If the Government had not recognised the continuing importance of the coal


industry, we would not be investing £2 billion in that industry over the next three years. We have invested far more over recent years than the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman used to support. In return, I hope that he will give careful consideration to the 150,000 jobs that are involved in the nuclear industry, particularly in the north-east.

Mr. Holt: In considering Sizewell B, will my right hon. Friend recognise the importance of the coal-fired industry particularly as it relates to NEI Parsons in the north-east of England where any further loss of jobs would be quite untenable? Until those orders come from the Government, nothing further can he done. We wish for a lead in that respect.

Mr. Walker: Orders come from the CEGB, not the Government. The Government do not own or run any power stations. I understand that applications must come from the generating industry, depending upon requirements. My hon. Friend knows that the CEGB has been examining a number of sites for coal-fired power stations. It will undoubtedly be considering what future strategy to pursue. I can only repeat what I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), that as soon as any applications come in they will be carefully and quickly considered.

Mr. Orme: Is it not a fact that, because there have been no orders for any type of power station over the past eight years under this Government, there is now a shortage of capacity, particularly in the south-east and south-west of England?

Mr. Walker: The Labour Government, who made the decision in 1978 on the Drax power station, decided to compensate the CEGB because they decided that the power station had been ordered ahead of time and the capacity was not needed.

Coal-fired Power Stations

. Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the ordering of new coal-fired power stations.

. Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board about the ordering of coal-fired power stations.

Mr. Peter Walker: I meet the chairman regularly and we discuss a wide range of issues. Applications for consent to the construction of power stations are a matter for the CEGB, and I have received no application in respect of a coal-fired station.

Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that unless orders for new power stations are placed quite soon there will inevitably be more redundancies in the power construction industry? Does he accept that that could be very serious, because it could damage one of our most successful industries not only in its capacity for building power stations in Britain, but all over the world?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is well aware of the way in which the Government have given quite considerable assistance to the industry in obtaining overseas orders. He will also be aware of the manner in which we have

organised credit facilities and so on for power station projects on a considerable scale. My Department has done all in its power to obtain those overseas orders. My hon. Friend will also understand that, as the CEGB applies to me to meet its capacity needs for the future, these matters will be quickly and carefully considered, as I have already said.

Mr. Beith: Is it not a matter of serious concern to the Secretary of State that the CEGB should not have submitted applications for coal-fired power stations to him? Does he not recognise that that was part of the strategy to get Sizewell through? Will he not now recognise that his overall responsibilities for energy require him to ensure that we have investment in coal-fired power station building quickly because that would be of immense importance to industry in the north of England?

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should be more objective in his study of capacity needs. It is not true that capacity needs will not be met at present. Quite reasonably, before deciding on its overall strategy, the CEGB should know whether the availability of nuclear power stations is part of that strategy. That is a perfectly reasonable decision to take. The CEGB has not delayed decisions so that there will be a lack of capacity. Therefore, I do not agree with any suggestion that it has done that.

Sir Trevor Skeet: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the difficulties in ordering a coal-fired power station before the 1990s is the technical problem of getting rid of nitrous oxide, which is a real problem in the industry?

Mr. Walker: It is a problem, but it can be tackled.

Mr. Skinner: If the Government wish to improve the manufacturing base, would it not be sensible to start to build a coal-fired power station immediately and to follow it with another? Does the Secretary of State accept that a coal-fired power station, or stations, should be built adjacent to the coalfields and that he should make an early start by siting one in the north midlands and south Yorkshire area as quickly as possible to provide some jobs?

Mr. Walker: It is important that the CEGB should decide how best to meet its capacity needs, and in terms of employment those needs must he dealt with efficiently and effectively. The improvement in the productivity of the coal industry will considerably assist it in making people believe that it deserves the orders that it requires. The industrial dispute which the hon. Gentleman supported so enthusiastically considerably damaged the coal industry.

Mr. Favell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are coal-fired power stations important to British manufacturing industry but that civil nuclear power stations are important, especially to the north-west and to William Fairey, which he will visit next week? Has my right hon. Friend read the report in The Sunday Times yesterday? Will he confirm that he will not be bullied by the French and other EC members, but will continue to support British manufacturing industry?

Mr. Walker: As for the report in The Sunday Times, as far as I am aware, no official complaint of any description has been made by the Commissioners of the European Community, so I cannot comment on the issue. The


Labour party's decision to eradicate the nuclear power industry during the next 20 years will be disastrous for jobs, especially in the north-east and the north-west.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

Scotland (Expenditure)

Dr. Godman: asked the Minister for the Arts what is the current level of expenditure on the arts in Scotland.

The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): The Arts Council of Great Britain has allocated £13·52 million to the Scottish Arts Council in 1986–87. In addition, the programme of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland provides for £80 million expenditure on arts and libraries this year.

Dr. Godman: The Glasgow citizens theatre is anxious to extend its season from 35 to 52 weeks at an additional cost of £250,000. This will help tourism and jobs in terms of the garden festival in 1989 and the city of culture in 1990. Will the Government and the Arts Council help in this laudable endeavour?

Mr. Luce: I acknowledge the remarkable range of arts facilities in Glasgow, including the citizens theatre, and I am glad that in 1990 Glasgow will be the cultural city of Europe. I hope that will bring many tourists and give much help to Glasgow. The allocations of funds is a matter for the Scottish Arts Council, which this year will receive a 4·6 per cent. increase in its overall grant. It is for the council to decide how precisely to allocate that money.

Mr. Maclennan: Has the Minister made any assessment of the effect upon expenditure on the arts of the transfer of responsibility for leisure and recreation from the regions to the districts? Has central Government funding taken any account of that effect, especially to offset the damage that has been suffered in rural areas because of the withdrawal of funding from the arts?

Mr. Luce: What I can say—I can only speak for the arts—is that the Scottish Office has provided an extra £600,000 for this financial year and the coming financial year to help the national arts organisations for Scotland. A formula has been operating for many years to allocate the total sum of money to the Scottish Arts Council, whose policy is to spread the money as widely as it can and to make the arts as accessible as possible to as many people in Scotland as possible.

Mr. Fisher: Does the Minister understand that the feebleness of his answer will greatly disappoint people in Glasgow and in Scotland in general? The Glasgow garden festival and the year of culture will need positive investment by the Government if their potential for the arts and for the people of Scotland is to be realised. Is the Minister aware of the possibility of a substantial Scottish arts presence at the 1989 Toronto arts festival, and does he accept that the Government must invest in that if the potential is to be realised? Will he again allow these opportunities to slip because of the feebleness of the Government's arts policy?

Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. When the cities made their bids to become the culture city, it was made quite clear that there would not be funding from central Government, that we would look to them to take the lead, and that it was a test of their good

intent and plans to do a good job in providing arts facilities in their city as a cultural centre. It was precisely on that understanding that Glasgow was chosen and Glaswegians have shown their confidence in their city by saying that they can set aside, to add to local government and private sector money, enough resources to enable the city to be a great success in 1990.

Acceptance-in-lieu

Mr. Hanley: asked the Minster for the Arts if he has any plans to change current arrangements for acceptancein-lieu of works of art.

Mr. Luce: I continue to keep the arrangements under review in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Hanley: Will my right hon. Friend say how much was spent last year securing pre-eminent works of art for the nation and whether he believes that the £2 million reserve in his Department and the £10 million reserve at the Treasury are adequate for this purpose and also whether co-operation between his Department and the Treasury is adequate?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the important new arrangements for acceptance in lieu, which means that we can now draw on a contingency reserve to the tune of an extra £10 million in addition to the £2 million that my Department gives. Overall, in this present financial year, just over £3 million has been drawn upon. There have been only seven acceptances in lieu this year and the opportunities for more are very strong. The more people who take this up, the better.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Minister bear in mind that, with the recent escalation in prices at auctions, what might have been adequate a year ago is no longer adequate? Does he accept that these sums need to be revised to take account of changing circumstances.

Mr. Luce: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the rates of inflation of some objects of art are very high, and that is a factor to be taken into account. As I have already said, the contingency reserve has not been fully drawn upon for this year and opportunities to draw upon it are still available. He will be aware of other arrangements, including the private treaty sale and the douceur, all of which are mechanisms for making it cheaper to purchase important objects of art and to save tax for the seller.

Mr. Alan Howarth: I acknowledge the substantial contribution that the Government have already made to enable the National Trust to acquire Kedleston hall., but is my right hon. Friend aware that the trust is still about £1·5 million short of the funds it needs to enable it to preserve the contents? As the origin of the problem is very much bound up with capital transfer tax obligations, will he look urgently to see whether there may be further scope, perhaps by drawing on the contingency fund that he has mentioned, to help by way of the AIL arrangements, or, if that is not appropriate, by some other route?

Mr. Luce: Many of these matters are for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My hon. Friend will recognise that the new arrangements for acceptance in lieu have been operating for only a short time and that the


full contingency fund has not been adequately and fully drawn upon. The opportunity is still there, and I urge people to take full advantage of it.

Mr. Meadowcroft: We appear to be less and less able to compete with American galleries and foundations in our attempts to retain art treasures in Britain. Does the Minister agree that one way in which he could assist in the retention of such treasures would be for him to take a much more generous view of the valuation of such treasures which may be given in lieu of tax?

Mr. Luce: There are very clear mechanisms and we bring in expert advisers to assess values. I am satisfied that those arrangements are working well. As regards the selling of treasures abroad, the export review committee, which has been in place for over 30 years, does an extremely good job in recommending what should or should not have a stop put upon it. These procedures are working well.

Museums and Galleries (Refurbishment)

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Minister for the Arts if he will make a statement on progress in refurbishing national museums and galleries.

Mr. Luce: I attach high priority to maintaining and improving these buildings, and have allocated over £27 million to it in 1987–88. That is over 30 per cent. more in real terms that in 1979–80.

Mr. Bowden: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but may I ask him whether he is obliged to accept the services of the Property Services Agency? The agency does a good job and provides professional expertise in many cases, but occasionally some museums could benefit from competitive tendering for refurbishment.

Mr. Luce: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this matter. From 1 April 1988 our museums and galleries will be untied from the PSA and will be able to take whatever action they wish about tendering and will be able to recruit whatever staff they need to enable them to do their job on that basis. This is the right way to proceed and it is right to give more responsibility to the trustees and to the directors.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware of the appalling state of upkeep of many of our great national museums— particularly the Victoria and Albert museum? Since voluntary charges were meant in part to assist in the refurbishment of that museum, what has been the most recent impact on attendance figures of the amount of money that the V and A has been able to produce from those charges? Has it not resulted in a great fall in the number of people attending the museum?

Mr. Luce: I must make it absolutely plain to the hon. Gentleman that, over a number of years, I have made available £27 million to the Victoria and Albert alone to enable it to undertake very important maintenance and refurbishment work. The record shows that the V and A has done a marvellous job under Sir Roy Strong's leadership and that a number of new galleries have been refurbished, including the medieval treasury. It is for the trustees to decide whether voluntary charges are in the interests of the museum. If the net increase in income leads to an improvement in facilities, I am sure that the vast majority of the British people will welcome it.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even where there are charges, voluntary or otherwise, there is always a time during the day when children have access to museums and galleries, and that he is pleased to see that happen?

Mr. Luce: I welcome the fact that a number of museums which charge, including almost every independent museum, give an excellent service to the public and offer a wide range of special services to enable schoolchildren to enter at a discount.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Recruitment

Mr. Wareing: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has to change the system of recruitment into the Civil Service.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. Richard Luce): There are no plans to change the basic principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit in Civil Service recruitment. Changes are continually being made to the detailed procedures to meet the changing needs of the Civil Service and of the labour market.

Mr. Wareing: Although it is now 17 years since the Fulton report was produced, is the Minister aware that the administration group of the home Civil Service—and, even more, the equivalent grades in the diplomatic service— are overwhelmingly dominated by the products of Oxbridge? Is it not time that we ended this elitism in the Civil Service and introduced some democracy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, and is he content with the fact, that 70 per cent. of those recruited into the home Civil Service administration groups in recent years have been the products of Oxford and Cambridge? Can it be that the other universities are no use at all in turning out our higher officials in Government service?

Mr. Luce: Our sole interest must be to get the best people for the Civil Service. [Interruption.] We have a fair and open system, based on merit. [Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen to this answer, because it may be of some interest to him. Whereas, in 1982, 75 per cent. of the recruits for the high fliers in the Civil Service were from Oxbridge, at the end of 1986 the proportion was down to 46 per cent. the hon. Gentleman will see that a much broader range of hackgrounds is now coming into the Civil Service.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my right hon. Friend accept that those who have to deal with the administrative sections of the Civil Service think that they are extremely good and do not want them mucked up with some sort of equality nonsense from the Opposition?

Mr. Luce: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The thing that really matters in the Civil Service is that the system should be fair and open and that we choose people on merit, irrespective of their background.

Dr. McDonald: As we are considering recruitment, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that civil servants will be recruited to staff the management centres for the Government data network? Will he also ensure that any exchange of information between Departments when the network is established will come under parliamentary


scrutiny, bearing in mind the fact that information about individuals from the Department of Employment, the Home Office or the Department of Health and Social Security could be put together in a package, thus posing an obvious threat to civil liberties?

Mr. Luce: I shall consider what the hon. Lady has said and, if I may, write to her in due course.

Trade Unions

Mr. Soley: asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he last met the Civil Service trade unions; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Luce: I have informal meetings from time to time with representatives of the Civil Service trade unions. Matters of mutual interest are discussed.

Mr. Soley: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the trade unions, will he discuss with them the effect on morale in the Civil Service of the cuts being made by his colleagues in other Departments, especially the DHSS, where cuts are preventing the provision of a good standard of service to the public and undermining morale in an increasingly serious way?

Mr. Luce: I and my colleagues who are in charge of Departments are keen to ensure that the morale of the Civil Service is high. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has acknowledged that there have been pressures on certain parts of the DHSS, particularly in offices all over the country, as a result of which he is planning to increase the size of the Civil Service by 5,000. That is an acknowledgement of the pressures and an attempt to deal with the morale problem in the Civil Service.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: May I suggest that not everything is right in the Civil Service at the moment? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the four Civil Service unions have set up a campaign for a better Civil Service at a cost of £6 million? Should not all members of the Civil Service now declare loyalty and allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and act like true civil servants by being honourable, respectable and responsible?

Mr. Luce: All the evidence that I see as I travel around the country and meet civil servants is that they do an outstandingly good job and that they are loyal, dedicated and professional. When individuals are not, disciplinary procedures can be taken.

Mr. Corbett: Given the fact that, in the face of rising crime, extra police officers have been appointed, why does the Minister resist calls, in the face of rising VAT fiddles, for an increase of 1,000 officers to deal with VAT frauds? Does the right Gentleman understand that, for about £20 million a year, they could recoup about £122 million in what is now fiddled VAT money?

Mr. Luce: The fact that, with the DHSS, VAT and in certain other areas, we have shown flexibility about the size of the Civil Service and are prepared to make modest increases when that would lead to an improvement of the service shows that we are anxious to ensure that there is a proper service.

Mr. Gow: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the offer that the Government have made to civil servants is sufficient to recruit, retain and motivate civil servants of high quality?

Mr. Luce: That is principally a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but my hon. Friend may have noticed that there is now a provisional pay agreement with the Institution of Professional Civil Servants to provide much more flexibility in the pay scheme to acknowledge retention and recruitment needs. I hope that that will be progress in the right direction.

Mr. Maclennan: Did the Minister take the opportunity to explain to the Civil Service unions whether the policy on decentralised pay bargaining was that proposed by the Paymaster General or that followed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Luce: There is common agreement among us that there is a need for more flexibility in the pay system. The provisional pay agreement that has been reached with the IPCS is a step in that direction and has the suppport of the whole Government.

Official Forms

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many official forms have been scrapped since 1979.

Mr. Luce: Since the Government's review of forms began in 1982, at least 17,500 forms have been abolished and 25,000 have been improved.

Mr. Bowden: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that achievement. Can a price be put on it? Can he say how much has been saved by scrapping those forms? Is there not a case for simplifying the forms that must remain to ensure that they are understood even by the most simpleminded of us?

Mr. Luce: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The saving made so far is £9 million of taxpayers' money. I hope that, as a result of the more recent reductions in the number of forms, further savings will be made. I welcome the fact that there is a campaign, led by Chrissie Maher, that is designed to improve plain English in this country. Her campaign has helped to improve and simplify many of the forms that the Government produce for taxpayers.

Mr. Holt: Could my right hon. Friend state why it is necessary for the Ministry of Defence to circulate a form asking about ethnic origin, when the Secretary of State for Defence has refused to do that for the armed forces? What is the difference?

Mr. Luce: Principally, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Dykes: Despite that welcome reduction, is my right hon. Friend aware that the tax assessment regulation forms now total more than 600 pages, compared with half that figure in 1950? Will he discuss that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether it can be reduced in the forthcoming Finance Bill?

Mr. Luce: I shall certainly discuss that with my right hon. Friend. For my part, I will do anything that I can to try to simplify the forms and make sure that they are better understood and more easily interpreted by the citizens of this country.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that the simplest of all the forms recently issed in the Civil Service was the one that asked civil servants whether they wanted to set up a political fund in the Civil and Public Services Association? As a result of all the attacks by the Government on civil liberties of one kind or another, the CPSA decided by a majority of 2:1, on this very official form, that they would

set up a political fund. Does he agree that that shows that civil servants realise they have been badly treated by the Tory Government?

Mr. Luce: The vast majority of civil servants wish to do what has always been their duty—remain impartial. The Government believe that trade unions need political funds only if they propose to participate in party political activities or to campaign for or against political parties or candidates.

Zeebrugge Ferry Disaster

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): With permission Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the loss of the vessel Herald of Free Enterprise.
Shortly before 7 pm GMT on Friday 6 March, the rollon/roll-off passenger ferry "Herald of Free Enterprise" capsized, without warning, in a position about three quarters of a mile outside the entrance to the port of Zeebrugge. She had left Zeebrugge about half an hour before on a passage to Dover. It is my sad duty to inform the House that a total of 53 people are known to have died and 82 others are believed to be missing. A total of 408 passengers and crew were rescued. I am sure that the whole House would wish to join me in expressing our deepest sympathy to the bereaved and the injured.
Immediately the tragedy occurred, the Belgian authorities took charge of the search and rescue arrangements, with assistance from Her Majesty's Coastguard and the Ministry of Defence rescue co-ordination centre at Plymouth. Two British warships were immediately dispatched to the scene, together with search and rescue helicopters carrying divers and other rescue equipment. I wish to pay tribute to all those involved in the rescue arrangements, especially to the Belgian authorities and the Belgian people, without whose speedy response the casualties would have been much greater. I should also like to pay tribute to the police, hospitals and fire services on both sides of the Channel, the staff of Townsend Thoresen and the British ambassador and his staff in Belgium for their assistance to the injured and bereaved.
A team of marine surveyors from my Department led by Captain Vale have begun to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the loss of this vessel.
I have decided that a full formal investigation should be held into this disaster. It will be conducted under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts. I am pleased to announce that after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, the hon. Mr. Justice Sheen, the Admiralty judge, has been appointed to be the commissioner for the investigation. He will be assisted by four assessors who will be appointed shortly. The date and venue for the inquiry will be announced when arrangements have been made, but I am anxious that there should be no delay.
It will be for the formal investigation to investigate the causes of this disaster and to make recommendations to ensure that all possible lessons are learnt. But the preliminary reports which I have received suggest that the cause of the capsize of the vessel was an inrush of water through the bow loading doors. I have no evidence to suggest that this was due to any fundamental fault in the design of the ship.
My Department has today embarked on a programme of checks on roll-on/roll-off ships leaving United Kingdom ports to ensure that all loading door mechanisms are in working order; that officers and crew are aware of the operating procedures, that all openings in the hull and superstructure must be closed before ships proceed to sea in accordance with statutory requirements, and that recommendations of safe practice should be observed.
I am also advising owners of roll-on/roll-off ferries to fit warning lights on the bridge of the vessels to show whether the loading doors are properly closed. Clearly, I shall consider whether to make this a statutory requirement.
Understandably, there is anxiety about the financial difficulties of the injured and bereaved both immediately and in the long term. As regards immediate needs in Zeebrugge, the British consul and his staff are offering all possible consular assistance. In this country, the Department of Health and Social Security is providing emergency arrangements so that people arriving at Gatwick and Dover can be given immediate help. As regards concern about long-term financial entitlements a team from the Department of Health and Social Security is going out to Zeebrugge today to give advice on the spot.
I understand that P&O has announced today that it has set aside £250,000 to meet the immediate personal needs of those in distress following the tragedy. This fund will be handled by the Townsend Thoresen office in Dover. The company will also be advertising in the national press tomorrow with details of the central point for claims. I have its assurance that all claims will be dealt with as quickly as possible.
On the initiative of Dover district council, a Channel ferry disaster fund has been established to assist the victims and their relatives. This will not affect claims for compensation. The Government will contribute £1 million to the fund. Parliamentary approval to this payment will be sought in a supplementary Supply Estimate for the transport services and central administration vote. Pending that approval, the £1 million donation will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.
Every year some 28 million passengers are safely carried on United Kingdom ferries and it is tragic that our fine record of safety has been marred by this disaster. I share the grief and anguish of those who are bereaved, and of those who are still uncertain of the fate of their friends and relatives. I am sure that the thoughts of all hon. Members of this House are with them

Mr. Robert Hughes: On behalf of the Opposition I express our shock at the magnitude of the tragedy and loss of life. We give our condolences to all those who lost family and relatives, and to the injured. It was a particular shock to many of us who have seafaring connections.
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the rescue services and the Belgian authorities, which acted with exemplary speed and efficiency. I also pay tribute to individual passengers and crew members. Reports are coming in of individual acts of heroism and it is clear that passengers and crew alike put their lives at risk and may, indeed, have lost their lives, trying to save other people.
I thank the Secretary of State's staff who, after I spoke to them on Friday night, kept me in constant touch over the weekend. I thank the Secretary of State for phoning me when he returned from Zeebrugge on Saturday night. I thank the Government for the donation of £1 million to the Dover disaster fund.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is of paramount importance that we discover as quickly as possible whether the primary cause of the disaster was the ship sailing with the doors open? I am glad that he has already put his surveyors on the ships to check the mechanisms to ensure that there is nothing wrong with


them. I am pleased that he is insisting that all roll-on/rolloff ferries are now fitted with monitoring devices and warning signals so that the skipper or the crew on the bridge can know immediately if something has gone wrong. Will he not hesitate to use section 21 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 to insist that that is done? I cerainly hope that it will not be necessary for him to use compulsion.
Will the Secretary of State discuss with European Transport Ministers of maritime nations how they can instigate common safety procedures? We want to ensure that all ships have proper standards of sailing procedures, no matter which port they are leaving—not just our ports or Belgian ports. Will he undertake an immediate examination of the need to secure vehicles before vessels leave port? It appears that there may have been a contributory factor of vehicles moving rapidly because they were not secured.
Will the inquiry look at the possibility of fitting stanchions in these vessels, which have no bulkheads, to prevent the vehicles from moving quickly in the event of such disasters, or in the event of a collision, because movement of vehicles affects the stability of the vessels? Will there be an inquiry into the ship's design, especially with regard to stability? The most important question to be answered is how, within 45 to 60 seconds, a vessel such as this could roll over.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the inquiry to look at the possibility although it is extremely expensive, of fitting moving bulkheads, if not to existing vessels, to new vessels, as some sort of bulkhead would at least buy some time to evacuate people safely?
I agree that we want a thorough and urgent report. Will the Secretary of State undertake that there will be interim reports so that any safety lessons that emerge will be put into effect without any delay? Will he urge the inquiry to look at the commercial pressures that may be compelling vessel owners to have swifter turn-rounds? Whatever lessons came out of this, in no circumstances can commercial pressures be allowed to militate against the safety of our people and our passengers.

Mr. Moore: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. I know that he speaks for all hon. Members in what he has said, and I welcome it. I start with his last point. Safety cannot be inhibited by any pressures. It is the first prerequisite, and all hon. Members would expect it to be the prerequisite of any Government, to establish regulations on safety at sea. The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to the passengers and the crew. It is difficult at this stage to be precise, but in my conversations at Zeebrugge and again this morning, with Jeffrey Sterling, it is clear to me that there are many, as yet untold, heroic actions both by members of the crew and passengers. I am sure that the former would have done their duty in the standards and tradition of the British merchant navy.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to establish the inquiry urgently—of course we must. To follow up another of his questions, I make it clear that no action will be inhibited by the time that it takes us to establish the precise cause. The preliminary investigations that I started on Friday night and Saturday morning are already under way. If there are, as a consequence, any actions to be

taken, or if actions become necessary because of what the formal inquiry presents, we shall not be inhibited in taking those actions by the inquiry process.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Act and the way that I might use other sections of the Merchant Shipping Act and section 21 in particular. I would not hesitate to use them. There is already a considerble number of regulations in this sector, as he knows. There are no statutory regulations on the physically securing of vehicles. It is done by advice to the masters of the marine. Whether that should be turned into statutory regulations is something that I should be more than happy to consider.
With regard to stanchions, the inquiry will not be inhibited in any aspect. It cannot be and should not be. We shall look at that point. With regard to the European Transport Ministers, the House may not be aware that the Commissioner for the European Commission, Mr. Stanley Clinton Davis, and some of his staff, spent most of Saturday with me. Not only did he show sympathy and concern, but he wishes, with the European Transport Ministers, to look at and discuss this matter.
With regard to the character and design of the ship, the public inquiry will no doubt address the design and safety margins for such ships. For the present, I stress again, as it is important for the many millions who travel by sea, that there is no evidence to suggest any reason for imposing restrictions on their operation. I would not have said that without clear advice. I would not inhibit, but encourage, the inquiry to look at this and all aspects of the issue.

Mr. Peter Rees: I thank my right hon. Friend for the statement and for his decision to make an immediate grant to the Dover district council disaster fund. His prompt visit and that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Zeebrugge to see the aftermath of the disaster was much appreciated. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) and I appreciated the prompt visit that the Minister with responsibilities for shipping paid with us to the coastguard station at Dover and to the headquarters of Townsend Thoresen on Saturday.
Will my right hon. Friend accept that many people in east Kent will wish to be associated with the tributes that he has paid to the rescue services, and with the expression of gratitude that he made to our neighbours in Belgium for their prompt and sympathetic response?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's prompt decision to set up a judicial inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Act. Will he ensure that the judge and his assessors are accorded all of the resources and assistance that they require, so that, while their inquiry will be a thorough one—it must be that to command confidence—it will also be a fairly speedy one? The obvious uncertainties over the reasons for this incident, and therefore over the passage of the ferries, may prejudice the ferries, which have had, until now, a well-deserved reputation for efficiency and safety in carrying millions of people across the Channel every year.
Will my right hon. Friend consider whether, in incidents of this kind, the methods of contacting and informing the families of those directly involved could be sharpened up? I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I came across one or two distressing cases over the weekend of families who were left in considerable uncertainty for a long time. One


appreciates that, when an incident has occurred in foreign waters, and the primary responsibilities for the rescue lie with foreign authorities, the difficulties may be considerable, but I know that my right hon. Friend will be sensitive to that particular point.

Mr. Moore: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend and start by saying how much my Department appreciated the assistance that he and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) gave by going to the rescue centres and information areas in Dover and Folkestone and ensuring that they did everything that they could to help the relatives of those who were looking for their kin.
As to the Belgium authorities, may I reiterate to the House what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, and what I said when I was in Belgium? I cannot express enough the thanks of the House and the British people for the extraordinary courage, efficiency and care with which the Belgian authorities and the Belgian people greeted us on this occasion.
The inquiry must not be restricted in any way as to resources. It is essential that it does its job properly; it would not wish to do anything else. I understand the point that my right hon. and learned Friend is making about speed. It is essential that we move as fast as we possibly can because, as he said, this involves an important industry that safely carried 28 million of our people across the Channel last year.
I heard the points that my right hon. and learned Friend made concerning the difficulties that occurred with regard to some of the telephone lines. Some 26 telephone lines were put in in the Maidstone special emergency area. I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look at this matter again, but it is very difficult when an incident has occurred in somebody else's jurisdiction. I shall certainly look at the point because of many of the difficulties that the bereaved found in these circumstances, and still find, is something that we all appreciate.

Mr. James Wallace: I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy for the bereaved and injured. I also pay tribute to the emergency services, the rescue services and to all those who supplied comfort and assistance to the injured and bereaved in Belgium and on this side of the Channel. From information supplied by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who has constituents missing, presumed dead, I know that the prompt and sensitive response of the staff of Townsend Thoresen has been particularly welcomed.
I welcome the announcement that the Minister made of Government support for the disaster fund and also the very prompt steps that he and his Department have taken to ensure safety and to reassure the public, who will need to have their confidence rebuilt after what has happened.
The Minister said that a full and public inquiry will take place, which will perhaps establish how the water got in. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the great concern that has been expressed at the volume of open space on the car deck. Will he confirm that that will be one of the matters that the inquiry will be looking into? The Minister can be assured that, if there are findings that suggest safety measures that could, perhaps, be said to conflict with commercial pressures, he will have our support in ensuring that safety is paramount.

Mr. Moore: I thank the hon. Member for what he said on behalf of his party. He will know that nothing can take second place to safety. He must understand that, and I reiterate the point.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about Townsend Thoresen. Those who have been involved in the tragedy are fully aware of the enormous resources that the company has devoted to try to make sure that the difficulties are handled with as much sensitivity as possible.
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that, as far as we can, we must take every action quickly. I will not let the inquiry inhibit action to reassure people.
I said earlier that the public inquiry will no doubt address the design of the ship and the safety margins of this type of ship, but I also said carefully that, as far as we could see at this stage, there is no evidence to suggest that we should impose restrictions on operations, apart from the additional action that I have announced today.

Mr. Terence Higgins: While joining in the expressions of sympathy to the bereaved, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is satisfied that steps to recover and identify the remaining bodies in the wreck are being taken without delay?

Mr. Moore: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. He has drawn attention to a difficult and important issue. I have spoken to Sir Jeffrey Sterling and to the people involved and there is no question but that the only criterion that concerns them is the raising of the vessel in such a way as to obtain the bodies of those currently entombed in the ship. That is the first, last and only important criterion that they are addressing, and that must be right. It is a very difficult operation, as those who have been involved know. Therefore, I am afraid that it will take time, but we wish them speedy success.

Mr. Donald Stewart: May I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy and with the thanks offered to the rescue services for the fact that, despite the tragic deaths, many passengers were rescued alive? Like other hon. Members, I represent a constituency which is served by roll-on roll-off ferries. I make no imputation against that type of vessel, but will the Secretary of State include in the public inquiry a general review of roll-on roll-off ferries?

Mr. Moore: I made it quite clear what I suggested that the public inquiry should examine and I do not think that I need to repeat the words for the third time. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his initial remarks. He is right to remind the House of the extraordinary achievements of the rescue services. It is impossible to describe how cold the waters were. To get 408 survivors out of 543 passengers in such conditions is one of the most remarkable miracles. We are all desperately sad at the death toll that we already know about and at the deaths that we suspect, but the achievement of the authorities and of everybody else is something for which we must all thank God.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In a tragedy of this magnitude there is hardly an hon. Member whose constituency has not suffered loss or injury. I think that it would be fair to all concerned if we moved on, because it is impossible for me to decide or discover who has suffered most.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the four motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (Domestic Carriage) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (Commencement No. 11) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Scotland) Amemdment Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

European Community Documents

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two motions relating to European Community documents.

Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 10279/1/86, relating to medical and health research, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.
That European Community Documents Nos. 11198/85 and 10522/1/86, relating to road haulage, be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

CHEVENING ESTATE BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Chevening Estate Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Opposition Day

[10TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Intermediate Nuclear Weapons

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. John Cartwright: There is widespread agreement in all parts of the House about the significance of Mr. Gorbachev's announcement on 28 February that the Soviet Union was dropping its previous insistence that any agreement on intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe could not be implemented until a similar agreement had been reached on strategic and space weapons. That statement was warmly welcomed throughout the world. Sadly, so far there has been no opportunity to discuss it in the House. There has been no statement from any Minister and, despite the Government's skeletal legislative programme, they apparently cannot find the time for a debate on the subject. That is why the alliance parties have given up half a day of their precious time to enable Parliament to discuss the issues and to probe and clarify the Government's position on this important subject.
The alliance strongly welcomes the Soviet decision, first because we believe that Mr. Gorbachev was wrong to try to hold progress on INF negotiations hostage to progress on strategic and space systems. The three negotiating baskets of Geneva were always intended to be separate and they should remain so. Secondly, we welcome Mr. Gorbachev's decision because it demonstrates the validity of the 1979 dual-track decision— the decision to modernise NATO's capability, while, at the same time, negotiating to remove the threat of the Soviet SS20s. The apparent success of that strategy reinforces the alliance's belief that sound defence and sensible disarmament are complementary and not contradictory. It also confirms our belief that progress in disarmament is less likely to result from great moral gestures than from patient, tough and determined negotiation.
The worldwide response to Mr. Gorbachev's announcement has been extremely positive. In the United States, the assistant Secretary of Defence, Mr. Richard Perle, seldom known as a dove in such matters, suggested it was
a constructive step that should open the way to concluding the remaining issues, leading ultimately to a treaty.
That was fairly typical of the response throughout the world.
Strangely, the British Government were almost the last to respond. When the statement appeared the Government were somewhat restrained in their enthusiasm. The Daily Telegraph of 3 March described the Foreign Secretary's statement as
carefully avoiding any impression of being over thr moon about the prospect of a zero option agreement".
At this stage we should be clear about the origins and purposes of the zero option. It is by no means some sinister Soviet ploy. After Reykjavik, Lord Carrington reminded us that the zero option was inherent in the original dual-track decision of December 1979. The zero option was first put forward officially in a speech by President Reagan as long ago as 18 November 1981. At that stage, he offered


the non-deployment of cruise and Pershing II missiles in return for worldwide dismantling of Soviet INF missiles. That offer was incorporated in the United States draft treaty that was tabled on 2 February 1982. It is also worth recalling that the draft treaty called for a freeze on the shorter range systems with reductions to be "sought in subsequent phases".
I argue that the zero option represents a good deal for Western Europe. Some 441 Soviet SS20s are now deployed. We may argue about how many of those are deployed against targets in Western Europe, how many are targeted against Asia and how many are in the so-called "swing" zone, which enables them to hit targets on either continent. They are mobile systems and therefore all of them are potentially available for use in the European theatre. With three warheads on every missile, that means that the Soviets have a total of 1,323 warheads in place. That compares with the 572 single warhead cruise and Pershing missiles that would be eventually deployed if NATO completes its planned programme within the next year or so.
Thus, there are substantially more Soviet missiles and warheads to be dismantled or destroyed as a result of the zero solution than there are NATO systems. This would be the first time in the history of arms control that brand-new, effective and sophisticated nuclear weapons were destroyed as a result of an agreement. That is extremely significant.
The Government's position on the zero option has undergone some subtle change since the Reykjavik summit. [HON. MEMBERS: "Subtle?"] It may not be so subtle, but we shall see as I develop my argument. The Prime Minister was originally an enthusiastic supporter of a straightforward zero option solution. On 27 March 1982 at Harrogate the right hon. Lady said:
That is our objective, the zero option objective. That is a balanced objective. 'You get rid of yours and we won't put ours in place.'
That is a clear and straightforward description of the option.
On 1 November 1983 the Prime Minister said:
No one would be better pleased than the Government if the result of negotiations was a zero option by the end of the year."—[Official Report, 1 November 1983; Vol. 47, c. 736.]
That was clear, unconditional support for a simple zero option solution. No qualifications were being set out at that stage about, for example, short-range weapons. It seems that it was the Reykjavik summit that set the alarm bells ringing. That summit seemed suddenly to reveal the possibility that the zero option was no longer an abstract theory, no longer a negotiating position. At that stage zero option was threatening to become a reality, and the right hon. Lady seemed to be somewhat concerned about how far President Reagan was intending to go in his negotiations with the Soviet Union.
The Camp David meeting between the President and the Prime Minister produced the statement of November 1986 suggesting that
priority should be given to an INF agreement with restraints on shorter range systems.
That was no different in character from what had been said before about shorter-range systems in relation to INF. However, the Prime Minister seems to have reinterpreted the Camp David statement in a much stronger form. On 18 November 1986 she was talking about an INF agreement and saying:

It would also be subject to negotiating at the same time on shorter-range systems".—[Official Report, 18 November 1986; Vol. 105, c. 444.]
In other words, an INF deal was somehow to be held hostage to progress on shorter-range systems.
That is not the view that American Administration officials have taken. Paul Nitze and other officials have made it clear that the United States endorsed the Reykjavik understanding that short-range INF systems would be dealt with but in follow-on negotiations. There has been no support for the, idea that an INF deal would somehow be conditional on an agreement on short-range systems.

Sir Julian Ridsdale: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has great experience of these matters because I am a member of the North Atlantic assembly with him. Does he agree that General Rogers, the C in C of NATO in Europe, took the same position as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister? He had doubts and he wanted to safeguard certain matters.

Mr. Cartwright: That is a fair point. I wish to consider short-range systems in more detail later. When I reach that stage, I shall try to deal with the issue which the hon. Gentleman has raised.
I was dealing with the switch in Government emphasis and the much greater importance that was suddenly given to short-range INF systems after the Reykjavik summit. The Secretary of State for Defence does not seem to have been swept along by the sudden anxiety about short-range systems. The right hon. Gentleman attended a Gleneagles meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in October after the Reykjavik summit and he was quoted in a number of national newspapers on 22 October as saying:
any INF deal should take into account the 'wider spread of weapons' in Europe, but at the end of the day 'if we can get a deal on INF alone then that's fine as far as the British Government is concerned.'
That was a welcome statement, and I shall be interested to see whether the right hon. Gentleman is as clear-cut in his comments this afternoon on that issue or whether he, too, has had to refine his attitude towards the zero option.
Since Mr. Gorbachev's statement on 28 February the Prime Minister has become even more strident in her denunciations of what she has described as the "huge imbalance" in the Soviet Union's favour in shorter-range nuclear systems in Europe. She has talked about the Soviet Union's "total superiority" in such systems. As a result, it seems that there is a suggestion that no deal should be done on INF until the imbalance is somehow sorted out.
I wish briefly to consider the issue of shorter-range INF systems. It is understandable that there should be concern that, if the SS20s are withdrawn, their role might be performed by shorter-range systems, especially if those systems are based forward. We know that the SS21s arid SS22s were brought forward into eastern Europe as a counter to cruise and Pershing deployments after December 1983. The Soviets have made it clear, however, that they are willing to withdraw those forward-based SS21s, SS12s and SS22s as soon as an agreement is signed on INF systems—the cruise and the Pershing on the NATO side and the SS20 on the Soviet side. There is thus a willingness on the part of the Soviet Union to deal with the problem as soon as an INF deal is signed.
There is also a proposal by the Soviet side to begin talks immediately with a view to reducing and, if necessary, eliminating other nuclear missiles in Europe. There is a


willingness, a possibility and a potential for dealing with the problem to some extent immediately, and further by additional negotiations.
There is nothing new about Soviet superiority in shorter-range nuclear missiles. That has been the position for at least 20 years. It was well known in December 1979 when NATO took its dual-track decision, and NATO did not make that decision relate to the problem of shorter range systems.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I appreciate that there were strong political reasons for Europe taking that dual-track stance in 1979 and again later. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the world has moved on since then, especially in the grey area of shorter-range systems. Is he suggesting that we should trust the Soviet Union, after we have signed a zero-option agreement on long-range systems, to fulfil the promise that it has made, and that there should be no linkage with the discussions on long-range systems?

Mr. Cartwright: I believe that the deal that was accepted by both sides at Reykjavik is a sensible one. We can arrive at a settlement on the long-range INF systems immediately— that was implied originally by the 1979 dual-track decision— and then move on to consider short-range systems. I take up the issue of the Soviet short-range threat.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the West should trade the certainty that its own INF, which has been so painfully put in place, would be dismantled in return for the possibility of negotiations, with no certain outcome, on short-range systems that directly affect us?

Mr. Cartwright: I am suggesting that the deal that was worked out at Reykjavik is a sensible one. It responds immediately to what was set out to be dealt with in 1979, the longer-range INF systems. The Soviets have offered negotiations and to take back immediately the systems which have been based forward. They have offered negotiations on the shorter-range systems. That seems to be acceptable to the United States and I cannot understand why it is not acceptable to Conservative Members.
I shall deal with the alleged difficulty about Soviet short-range systems. The most modern SS21s and SS23s account for only about 200 systems in the Soviet inventory. Much of the apparent Soviet superiority consists of elderly missiles of extremely doubtful accuracy. It is worth saying that Soviet superiority in very short-range systems, such as battlefield and short-range tactical systems, is balanced by NATO's much larger stocks of nuclear artillery shells and bombs. That is something we should bear much in mind.
Short-range systems are certainly important but we should not allow ourselves to be mesmerised by the problem. Secondly, we should not start to shift the INF goalposts as a result of the Soviet's superiority in short-range systems.

Mr. John Maples: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman is now such an enthusiastic supporter of the zero-zero option for intermediate nuclear systems. That has not always been his position. In a debate

in the House on 31 October 1983, the alliance tabled an amendment that urged the Government effectively to cease deploying cruise and Pershing missiles in exchange for a reduction by the Soviet Union in the number of SS20s that they deploy. Does he think in retrospect that that was wrong and that the Government's decision was right?

Mr. Cartwright: No. If the hon. Gentleman does a little more research than he has apparently done, or does not depend only on Tory Central Office, he will discover that in that debate the alliance had an amendment of its own which called for further negotiations with the Soviet Union without in any way weakening NATO's bargaining position. He would also find out that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) made it clear that we regarded the zero option as the best long-term possibility, but at that stage in the game it was not a practical possibility because the Soviet Union had clearly ruled it out. Therefore, we were arguing for something very much closer to the "walk in the woods" solution, which had a great deal of support at that time.

Mr. Denis Healey: The hon. Gentleman has put fairly the position that he put in the debate in 1983. However, does he recall that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Social Democratic and Liberal parties, including the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), voted against the deployment of cruise and Pershing at the end of the debate, with the Labour party? Every single one of them voted in that way.

Mr. Cartwright: Every member of the alliance voted in favour of our amendment and the Labour party summoned up all its courage on the issue and bravely abstained on our amendment. That was the position. We set out five objections to the Government's motion and we voted against the Government's motion, not against deployment. If the right hon. Gentleman disputes that in any way I refer him to the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) on 23 November 1983 after the Soviet Union had quit the negotiations at Geneva. He said:
NATO has no alternative but to continue with the first stage of the deployment."—[Official Report, 23 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 329.]
That kills the right hon. Gentleman's argument that somehow we voted against deployment. We did not; we voted against the Government.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cartwright: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have been generous in giving way.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Does my hon. Friend recall that when I was the defence spokesman for the Liberal party in 1979 I agreed with the Government on the need to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles if the SS20s were not withdrawn and I repeated that and carried the party with me in 1981 at Blackpool?

Mr. Cartwright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful contribution.

Mr. Leigh: rose—

Mr. Cartwright: I have been reasonably generous in giving way. I think that I have given way sufficiently for the moment.
I want to move on to some of the other issues that have been raised against the background of Mr. Gorbachev's


announcement. That includes issues such as verification, chemical weapons, the conventional imbalance and the doctrine of flexible response. All those issues have been raised in relation to the possibility of an IMF deal.
Verification is obviously an extremely essential element in any agreement. The United States has proposed a full exchange of information. It has proposed on-site verification of dismantling and effective monitoring of the future of missile sites. The Soviet Union, for its part, has agreed in principle but has so far been somewhat reluctant to fix details of verification procedures. However, modern satellite surveillance systems have enabled us to know accurately the details of SS20 deployments made so far and I believe that it should be possible by using those methods to prevent cheating. It is worth recalling that there are problems for the Soviet Union, too. The United States deploys many hundreds of cruise missiles which could be nuclear armed or conventionally armed. It is extremely difficult for the Soviet Union to know whether they are carrying nuclear or conventional warheads. Verification will obviously involve a great deal of tough, detailed negotiation but I do not believe that it should be allowed to become a stumbling block in the progress towards an agreement.
There is no doubt that the Soviet Union's possession of chemical weapons is a threat but that threat has not radically changed since December 1979. The progress now being made at the United Nations disarmament conference—I give credit to Her Majesty's Government for the role Britain has played in the negotiations—is of great importance. Currently, the negotiations are balanced on the issue of verification, particularly the American concern about challenge verification, but I cannot believe that tying chemical weapons to an INF deal in any way would make agreement at Geneva any easier.

Mr. Ray Whitney: On the matter of chemical weapons, when the hon. Gentleman says that the threat has not changed, is he telling the House that there has not been a build-up of Soviet chemical weapons since 1979?

Mr. Cartwright: I accept that there has been a build-up but the threat, as an effective threat, is still there. There has been no additional strengthening of that threat. The United States' decision to press ahead with the binary system is something that I very much regret, but whether the threat is stronger or at the same level, the situation is not altered or improved by trying to link negotiations on chemical weapons to INF negotiations.
It has been suggested in some quarters that NATO somehow needs the cruise and Pershing missiles to answer Soviet conventional superiority in Europe. It is worth reminding ourselves that those weapons systems were not deployed in answer to a Soviet conventional superiority. They were deployed in answer to the Soviet's introduction of very much more powerful, accurate and sophisticated intermediate nuclear weapons. NATO was well aware of the conventional imbalance in December 1979 when it took the dual-track decision but it was not an element in that decision. The deployment of cruise and Pershing was conditional on the Soviet removal of SS20 and not on cuts in conventional forces. Again, I would argue that there is no hard evidence that the conventional position has worsened dramatically since December 1979. In fact, I

would suggest that there is some evidence that NATO is at last beginning to get its act together on conventional forces.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Cartwright: Yes, but this must be the last time.

Mr. Stewart: Would the hon. Gentleman take into account the evidence of Robert McNamara from his tremendous knowledge of the position, that when there is a slight preponderance in favour of the Soviet Union, it has been grossly exaggerated?

Mr. Cartwright: I would probably go a little further than the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it is a "slight preponderance" but a worrying preponderance. However, I take the view that one can exaggerate. That is a fair point.
In NATO we cannot go on seeing nuclear weapons as some sort of crutch to bolster NATO's conventional deficiencies. Deterrence has to rest on a mix of nuclear and conventional strength and the nuclear component ought to be seen as a weapon of last resort, not something to be used for war fighting. Therefore, I could not accept any attempt to link an INF deal to conventional force levels. That is an important issue but it should be the subject of separate negotiations.
That brings me to the issue of flexible response. I certainly accept that it could be argued that a zero option and the removal of intermediate nuclear missiles undermines the doctrine of flexible response because it removes one rung in the ladder of escalation. However, that again was clearly foreseen in December 1979 as an inherent result of the dual-track decision. If the SS20s are removed there is not the same need to respond with comparable nuclear weapons systems. In any case, NATO would retain substantial nuclear capability in the European theatre; for example, dual-capable aircraft, United States submarine-launched cruise missiles and even the United Kingdom nuclear forces dedicated to NATO.
In any case I have some doubts about the scenario of nuclear escalation being based on some sort of stately gavotte starting with battlefield systems, moving through tactical and intermediate systems to strategic nuclear weapons. I agree with General Rogers, the supreme allied commander in Europe, who has always said that when one crosses the nuclear threshold at the lowest level one has no idea about what will flow from that decision. Therefore, I do not believe that we should let some slavish adherence to the doctrine of flexible response stand in the way of sensible disarmament.
The Government are right to be careful and cautious about the prospect for an INF deal. The deal is certainly not in the bag. A great deal more negotiation will be needed before we can sign an agreement. Therefore, a cautious and careful approach is justified but there is a difference between being cautious and careful and raising unnecessary obstacles along the road. I think that we are all agreed that Mr. Gorbachev was wrong to link INF agreements to progress on SDI. It would be just as wrong now for the West to try to link an INF deal to other important issues which must be the subject of separate negotiations. NATO fixed the goalposts of the zero option in 1981 and it would be foolish for us now to try to move them.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman speaks with great knowledge and authority on these matters. Therefore, can he tell the House once and for all, because it is important for the House and the nation to know, whether he now disavows the statement in the official 1986 Liberal publication "These are Liberal Policies", that the alliance was opposed to the deployment of cruise missiles?

Mr. Cartwright: Fortunately, I am not responsible for what goes into "These are Liberal Policies". If that statement were simply reflecting a Liberal assembly decision, no doubt it was an accurate description of the Liberal assembly vote. However, if we are talking about the way in which the alliance votes in Parliament and the position that it took, it is absolutely clear that we backed the dual-track position of December 1979. Although we wanted negotiations to go on until the last moment and we wanted them to succeed, at the end of the day we accepted that deployment had to take place. That is the position, which we made absolutely clear.
Let me look again at the prospects for negotiations. The House should also bear in mind that an agreement on INF would be an important confidence-building step for other negotiations, which are likely to be even more complex and demanding, for example, on shorter-range systems, conventional defence, chemical warfare, and so on. Those of us who believe in negotiated disarmament should bear in mind that it is important that we start to show some results from negotiated disarmament. The Labour party is no longer interested in securing negotiated disarmament. It believes that one disarms first and hopes that the others will follow in one's footsteps. Those of us who do not accept that road and who believe that disarmament comes through negotiations must now start to show some results. There is not much to show from the past—the threshold test ban treaty, the unratified and now increasingly tattered SALT II and an ABM treaty that is increasingly under pressure. There is now a welcome sense of urgency about INF negotiations, and it would not be right for us to confuse our objectives with other important issues.
We need a clear step-by-step approach to the difficult and time-consuming business of disarmament negotiations. That approach was endorsed strongly by the Foreign Secretary in the unlikely setting of a dinner in East Berlin on 4 April 1985 when he justified the case for seeking individual disarmament agreements by quoting Plutarch as having said:
Many things which cannot be overcome when they are taken together yield themselves up when taken little by little.
Those words are just as relevant today as when the Foreign Secretary used them almost two years ago.
I urge the Government to throw their full weight behind the effort to secure the zero option as a vital first step in the long process of negotiated disarmament.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger): I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) for giving us the opportunity to discuss what is undoubtedly a matter of great importance, which greatly interests all hon. Members. I thank him for the thoughtful way in which he has done his best to present a case, but I am bound to add that I cannot help feeling a great deal of sympathy for him in the impossible task with which he has been landed. There are some clear pointers to the extreme difficulty of that task.
One is a truly extraordinary situation that I cannot recall happening before. An Opposition party that had to choose an important matter for a debate in which there are clear policy lines to be discussed has failed even to attempt to table a motion on which the House can express a view for or against. We know why that is. There is not the remotest chance that the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party could have got together between the middle of last week and now and devised any motion that would have got both parties into the same Lobby.

Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Môn): My right hon. Friend says that he cannot recall a similar incident. I recall not long ago a debate on defence matters, initiated by the leader of the Liberal party, in which he gave several options, none of which he thought he would favour. In fact, he said in terms that these matters could not be decided by a party in opposition because it did not have sufficient knowledge.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. I remember that other strange operation, of which today's operation reminds me, when the leader of the Liberal party produced 10 different options. He expressed doubts about all of them, and none has been heard of again. That is not surprising.
It cannot be without significance that this important debate, decided upon by the alliance I understand, has been attended by only two members of the Liberal party. It is clear why that is so. Most of the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich—certainly all those with which I agreed, of which there were a considerable number—would be turned down outright by any version of the Liberal assembly that anyone likes to invent.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, his anxiety to try to please both halves of his responsibilities has led him to some strange conclusions. He said that he had no doubt that the zero option was a good deal. I am grateful for that. He is right. That is why we should pursue it. However, the hon. Gentleman may not have remembered that on 31 October 1983 his right hon. Friend—if that is the right description—the leader of the Liberal party gave as the third reason for not having supported the Government on the twin track decision that he did not agree with the emphasis put on the zero option.

Mr. Cartwright: I cannot let the right hon. Gentleman get away with that. If he looks at the rest of what my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party said, he will see that he said that he dislikes the emphasis placed on the zero option, and he added:
Of course that was the best option".—[Official Report, 31 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 640.]
But it was not the best option to obtain agreement at that time.

Mr. Younger: That was a noble effort. I can only say that, in the Government's view, that was the best option; and today it is clear that it has paid off handsomely and the Government were right throughout.
The hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that the Americans were not in favour of restraints on the short-range intermediate nuclear forces. With respect, that is untrue. It has been part of the American negotiating position for several years—about four or five years. So the hon. Gentleman is not correct on that.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that Mr. Gorbachev was said to have announced that he would withdraw the short-range intermediate nuclear weapons,


but the point is that the word is "withdraw". The hon. Gentleman would do well to ponder the difference between "withdraw" and "destroy". Withdrawing those highly mobile weapons is not a great reassurance to those of us who are frightened that they could easily be moved around quickly and deployed against us.
The hon. Gentleman has one advantage in his difficult task— he is provided, by the twin-headed advisers who sit behind him, with an argument for almost every occasion. He cannot be stuck, whatever happens. For instance, he had to marry the difference between these two statements. His hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), whom I am delighted to see here, correctly intervened on 13 December 1979 to say:
I, on behalf of my parliamentary colleagues, fully support the decisions taken in Brussels yesterday, as we agree that it is necessary to update and modernise the NATO theatre nuclear capability."— [Official Report, 13 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 1545.]
Well done indeed. However, let us look at the more up-to-date "These are Liberal Policies" of 1986. Page 19 of the Liberal document states:
The Liberal Party and the Alliance in Parliament oppose the deployment of cruise missiles in this country. We will seek the immediate removal of those that have now arrived.
It is a hard task to represent the alliance on a subject such as this.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Woolwich on one strange theory that he produced today, which simply will not do, and I hope that he will not try it again. He said that he is not responsible for Liberal party policy. I understood that he was appointed as the defence spokesman of the alliance. I can reveal to the House that the alliance consists of two parties— the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party. Therefore, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, from now on he is responsible for the policies of the Liberal party.

Mr. Stephen Ross: No—for the alliance party.

Mr. Younger: From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has said, "for the alliance party." Unfortunately, the electors are not given such a luxury. Each one of us must decide whether we support a particular candidate in our constituency. We must support either a Social Democrat or a Liberal, and the policy must be spoken for by the alliance spokesman who is in the Chamber now. I believe that argument is one to which the hon. Gentleman had better not return.
I want to spend a few moments spelling out the Government's position on this important issue. In spite of all that I have said, we are grateful to the hon. Member for Woolwich for raising this issue. It is now more than seven years since NATO's twin track decision in 1979 to deploy long-range INF missiles in Europe and at the same time to seek an arms control agreement with the Soviet Union. It was a decision that epitomised this Government's approach to security: a determination to provide the defence forces we need, together with a willingness to reach arms control agreements that would provide for security at lower levels of weapons. We went ahead with those deployments, and today it is beginning to look as though the Soviet Union may at last be willing to negotiate a balanced agreement on them.
It is as well to remember how we got to where we are today. By 1979, the Soviet Union had reached approximate parity in strategic weapons with the United States. Then, as now, there was a gross imbalance in

conventional forces in Europe. The Soviet Union was rapidly building up its deployments of Backfires and SS20 missiles. Each of these missiles is capable of carrying three nuclear warheads, which could strike targets throughout western Europe. Faced with these threats, it was clearly essential that NATO had an effective response, short of the strategic level, with European-based forces cabable of striking the Soviet Union. NATO's existing capability in this area consisted of aircraft— mainly US F111s— which were becoming increasingly vulnerable to attack on the ground and which faced increasing Soviet air defences. We and our NATO partners therefore decided in 1979 to modernise those forces with ground-launched cruise and Pershing II missiles, to be based in the United Kingdom and four other European countries, beginning in 1983. This was the deployment part of the 1979 decision. The arms control part of the decision was to seek a negotiated agreement on weapons of this type.
For many months, the Soviet Union refused to negotiate at all, but when it became clear that NATO was firm in its resolve to go ahead with the deployment part of its decision, it agreed to negotiations, and these began in November 1981. NATO's position throughout these negotiations has been that there should be global equality between United States and Soviet LRINF missiles.
The most radical proposal was the one we tabled in 1981 for a global ban on all United States and Soviet long range INF missiles. When it became clear that the Soviet Union was not ready for such a radical step, the United States, between 1983 and 1986, tabled a series of interim offers, providing for global equality at levels above zero. The deal agreed at Reykjavik was quite close to the original NATO proposal of global zero— but, as an important concession to the Soviet Union, it was agreed that it could retain 100 SS20 warheads in Soviet Asia, while the United States would retain a similar number in the United States.
What of the attitude of the Soviet Union? Well, we saw a range of tactical moves from the Russians. First, back in 1981, they pretended that balance already existed in INF weapons by distorting the figures and including the United Kingdom and French deterrents of a quite different nature and purpose. They claimed that this meant that NATO should not go ahead with deployments. They tried scare tactics, with dire predictions in 1983 about the consequences if NATO deployments went ahead. Then they tried walking out of the negotiations. When that did not work, they returned to the negotiating table, and we saw Gorbachev's offer of January last year, which offered a zero solution in Europe, but would have left the Soviets with 500 SS20 warheads in Asia, which could rapidly be returned to Europe at a time of tension. Finally, at Reykjavik, they agreed to the zero-100 solution.

Dr. David Owen: Is not the right hon. Gentleman missing out the other important concession made by Mr. Gorbachev at Reykjavik— that he accepted that the French arid the British should retain nuclear weapons as they were European states? Without that concession it would have been harder, and I believe indeed wrong, for the United States to have accepted the 100 SS20s on the Chinese border.

Mr. Younger: The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct. I was going to mention that later. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the reason why


the Russians accepted that qualification was largely that we were clearly determined not to be pushed from that position. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would he generous enough to agree with that.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend clarify a very important point about the Soviet SS20 deployments? He referred to Soviet Asia. Is it not true that the 100 SS20s could, from Soviet Asia, threaten Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, the ASEAN states and Japan? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Soviets are seeking to prevent the United States from deploying their 100 INF systems in Alaska?

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is correct. Of course, the precise positioning of where we can agree to have those 100 missiles in the Soviet Union will be an important part of the negotiations.
Having reached the zero-100 solution, the Soviet Union then put up another obstacle. Mr. Gorbachev had agreed at his Geneva summit with President Reagan in 1985 that an INF deal could be agreed independently of the other negotiations. But at Reykjavik this linkage was imposed once again. The Russians declared that they could not go ahead with an INF deal without a solution on the SDI, and the opening of negotiations on a comprehensive test ban. It was always hard to see the logic in this position, and we can all welcome the fact that this latest Soviet barrier to progress in the negotiations has also been put aside.
One prominent red herring has been the Soviet attempt to involve the United Kingdom and French deterrents, and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) raised that point a moment ago. We and our NATO allies have been clear throughout that they have nothing whatever to do with the INF negotiations, which are about land-based intermediate range United States and Soviet systems. At first the Soviets claimed that those national deterrents should be matched against their SS20s in Europe; then they tried insisting that they should be prevented from being modernised; and finally, at Reykjavik, Mr. Gorbachev confirmed Soviet acceptance that they had no connection with the INF negotiations.
What lessons can be drawn from this? It is obvious enough that many of the Soviet proposals have been tabled not so much in order to make progress towards a negotiated solution, but rather with the hope of beguiling Western publics and undermining support for NATO deployments and our negotiating positions. Our people, or most of them, are not as naive as some in the Soviet Union appear to think. You will need no reminding, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the volume and heat of the debate on INF deployments when it reached its height in 1983. But we and our allies were clear in our determination to proceed with deployments unless an equitable deal could be reached, and the general election result that year demonstrated that, despite the antics of a noisy minority, the British public knew that to be the right course.
At this point it must be recorded for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Devonport and his right hon. and hon. Friends that throughout this business the Labour party has been solidly supporting the actions and efforts of the Soviet Union to drive a wedge between the two halves of the Alliance on this point. Many Labour Members know that to be true.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is most important that we should be extemely cautious about this offer from Mr. Gorbachev, especially as in his statement on 2 March he said:
Of course, the conclusion of such an agreement, as has been repeatedly emphasised, should be conditioned by a decision on the prevention of deployment of weapons in space, in view of the organic interconnection of these issues."?
In other words, there appears to be something of a qualification there.

Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend has raised two points. First, I am sure he will agree that this is not an offer from Mr. Gorbachev. We must remember that this is not an offer from Mr. Gorbachev; this is an acceptance by Mr. Gorbachev of the offer that we have been making and that has been on the table for some considerable time.
Secondly, my hon. Friend may be right to say that there is a qualification in those words. However, as I read them, they refer specifically to deployment, and it is common ground in the West that deployment is not allowed under the anti-ballistic missile treaty and, if it became necessary, it would have to be the subject of negotiation between East and West.
There are other conclusions to be drawn from all this. The 1979 twin track decision was the result of extremely close consultation in the Alliance, and that consultation has continued to this day, at all levels. We have worked together, respecting each other's needs and interests, in pursuing our common goal, often in the face of great pressure and difficulties. That is the strength of the Alliance—that we can work together on that basis—and Opposition Members would do well to reflect solemnly on that fact.
One other point is abundantly clear. We would have got nowhere in the negotiations if we had not been determined to proceed with deploying cruise and Pershing II missiles. We have done so, and that has brought us to the position today where we can see the outline of a deal that would get rid of 90 per cent. of the Soviet SS20 threat. What would the Soviets have offered the unilateralists? What would they have offered if we had failed to go ahead with our deployments?
But we are not home yet. During the past few days, some hon. Members seem to have acquired the impression that an INF agreement is in the bag. That is far from being the case. The Soviet Union has removed this latest self-imposed obstacle, and that is to be warmly welcomed, but a number of important issues need to be resolved, not by declarations and speeches, but by serious and detailed negotiations, if we are to have an agreement. Important details on the long-range INF missile reductions must be resolved. There is also the question of shorter-range INF missiles, which the hon. Member for Woolwich mentioned at some length, which have ranges between 150 km and 1,000 km. The Soviet Union has a large imbalance of about 9: 1 in its favour at this range band. It is an important range, because it allows missile systems in the Warsaw pact to target almost all of western Europe, while NATO missiles of a similar range would be incapable of targeting the Soviet Union. If they were left unconstrained in an LRINF agreement, and especially an agreement banning LRINF missiles in Europe, this could be undercut by Soviet deployments of SRINF systems that could be almost as effective.
That is why part of NATO's negotiating position since 1982 has been that any INF agreement should include


constraints on SRINF missile systems of the 500 km to 1,000 km range, which means the Soviet Scaleboard and SS23 missiles. The NATO proposal has remained broadly the same over those years. It calls for a ceiling in Soviet systems of this range, together with a United States right to match them. It is an essential condition for any equitable INF agreement, but the Soviet Union has yet to agree to it. Its offer of negotiations on missile systems of 1,000 km and below is all very well, but it does not provide what is required to prevent an INF agreement from being undercut by deployments at this level.

Mr. Dick Douglas: There is bound to be an element of confusion in relation to the word "we". I hope that the Secretary of State will try to establish any difference of emphasis between the negotiating posture that INF should be linked to the short-range missiles possessed by the Soviet Union and NATO in Europe and what he seems to be suggesting is the Government and NATO position.

Mr. Younger: I am not sure whether I understood the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have tried to make clear to the best of my ability whether I mean the United Kingdom or NATO when I have used the word "we". If I have not done so, I apologise and will try to make sure that it is clear in the future.

Mr. Douglas: I am sorry if I did not put it clearly. The deficiency is obviously mine. What I am trying to establish is that the United States' negotiating policy does not seem to have a linkage to the short-range nuclear weapons in Europe. We seem to be insisting on such a link.

Mr. Younger: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is correct. It has been part of the United States' negotiating position for years that there should be constraints on short-range systems. That was clearly repeated to me recently when I was in Washington and when Ambassador Nitze and Richard Perle came over here last week.

Mr. A. J. Biffen: There is a world of difference between reminding the House that the United States and, indeed, Britain continue to be concerned about short-range nuclear missiles and about seeking a solution to the problem and declaring that it is a condition of arriving at the INF agreement.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman had better check it again himself, but this has been part of the position on the negotiations for a very long time. Indeed, he will find that it is part of the United States' negotiating position at Geneva.

Mr. Gavin Strang: As I understand it, the United States has produced a counter-proposal to the Soviet initiative— if we can call it that— and circulated a draft treaty. Does that draft treaty refer to SRINF?

Mr. Younger: I cannot go into detail on the proposal that the United States has tabled at Geneva. The negotiators on both sides will know, but I cannot go into that today. I am absolutely clear that the United States has agreed—this was reinforced to me recently—that this is part of its negotiating position. There is no change in that position, and this difficulty, if it is one, is entirely imaginary.

Mr. James Callaghan: This is the nub of the debate. My understanding is that the

United States' position, as expressed by Mr. Maynard Glitman in Geneva last week, was that they would deal with the intermediate nuclear force negotiations and secure a treaty, in the expectation that they would follow it immediately with further negotiations to deal with the other short-range missiles. That excludes the offer that Gorbachev has apparently made to withdraw— the Secretary of State used the correct word— those deployed in Eastern Europe as a result of our deployment of cruise.
As there might be a difference between the British Government and the United States Government, the House will be interested to know the answer to this question. Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that short-range nuclear missiles must be included in the same treaty as that for intermediate nuclear forces, on which they seem to be about to embark? If so, those of us who supported the Government's attitude on deployment would differ from them very strongly.

Mr. Younger: I think that I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance for which he asks. He may have noticed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to this in a broadcast on Sunday, but it was made clear that the draft treaty contains articles constraining the shorter-range weapons that might be used to bypass an LRINF agreement. That is clearly in the negotiating position as of now. I can answer the right hon. Gentleman's question by saying that, of course, it is possible that an initial agreement may be drawn up containing constraints, and it does not rule out later negotiations about other aspects further to the constraints that may have been agreed. But our position is clear. If an INF agreement is to be struck, it must include constraints on SRINF, the details of which are still to be negotiated. I hope that that reassures the right hon. Gentleman. It is certainly intended to do so.
It is for these reasons that NATO's position is that, in the event of an LRINF agreement, it will also be important that it is followed by negotiations aimed at addressing the imbalance in SRINF forces and dealing further with LRINF. Furthermore, as the Prime Minister and President Reagan agreed at Camp David last year, reducing the levels of nuclear weapons will increase the importance of eliminating conventional disparities. But there is no suggestion that we are imposing any formal negotiating linkage between these aims and an INF agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will deal with this issue further, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, later this evening.
The third issue that needs to be resolved in an INF agreement is verification. We have welcomed the general statements by the Soviets of willingness to accept on-site inspection, but, if an agreement is to be effectively verifiable, it will need to include specific and detailed provisions as to how this is to be achieved. This will require long and painstaking negotiations and a constructive approach on both sides. We will need to be patient, and the Soviet Union will have to understand that we will not be rushed into an agreement with inadequate verification just on promises that the details can be settled later. But if the Soviet Union really wants an agreement, and is prepared to negotiate constructively, then it will find


the United States, with the full support of its allies, more than willing to join it in negotiating and implementing an agreement.
I should like to conclude by giving a view of the Reykjavik INF European zero deal from my point of view as Secretary of State for Defence. We have seen a lot of comment in the press over worries in Europe about the deterrence implications of this INF deal. It would indeed involve the complete removal of the cruise and Pershing II missiles that we have worked so hard to deploy here in the first place. Of course, any arms control agreement that involves substantial reductions of forces will mean difficult choices and hard decisions. We and our NATO allies have discussed these and will continue to do so in the months ahead; but the Reykjavik deal would also remove a major element of the Soviet intermediate range threat facing us, and I am totally confident that we would be able to maintain effective deterrence following such a deal. I also hope and believe that a successful INF deal would help to make progress possible in other areas of arms control.
The Government's policies on all this are clear. We will maintain the forces required for effective deterrence—unlike some who would throw them away. We will work with our allies to maintain our common security—unlike some who would throw them out. In this way, rather than through pious statements and wishful thinking, we will also provide the most effective basis for reaching arms control agreements that can provide for security at lower levels of forces.
I started by welcoming this debate and making a few suggestions to the hon. Member for Woolwich, who opened the debate, about how difficult his task must be. However, his task is relatively simple compared to the task facing the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) who is to speak in the debate. The whole House awaits with great interest every word that will be spoken by the right hon. Gentleman. It is widely known, not just in this House but throughout the Western Alliance, that the right hon. Gentleman is gravely disturbed and greatly disagrees with the vast majority of the Labour party's policy on this matter. Yet he is faced with the prospect of making a speech defending many matters with which he completely disagrees.
Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman has to do that, a time when it has become crystal clear that the policy followed by the Labour party for the last four or five years has fallen in ruins about the ears of those by whom it was formulated. They have resisted, fought and disagreed with the whole policy of deploying cruise missiles in response to the SS20s on the basis that to do so would force the Soviet Union never to remove them and to be more intransigent than ever.
It is plain to anyone who can read and understand English that exactly the reverse has taken place, purely because we resisted the blandishments of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, although usually he did not employ such blandishments— until recently anyway—and stood up to the threats that were made and deployed the cruise missiles. As a direct result that Soviet Union is now prepared to come to discuss the removal not just of cruise missiles in this country and in other western European countries, but of the SS20s which caused the problem in the first place.
There can seldom have been a clearer case of the policy of a party being proved in mid flight to be absolutely unviable and to have produced the opposite effect to that which was intended. Therefore, it is a highly suitable policy for the Labour party to have adopted and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman's defence of it.

Mr. Denis Healey: I shall start by echoing the Defence Secretary's words because I welcome the chance to debate this important matter. I am staggered to find that the alliance parties, as they call themselves, should have chosen to debate possibly the most important single issue in world affairs and yet neither the leader of the Social Democratic party nor the leader of the Liberal party has chosen to speak in the debate. Indeed, the leader of Liberal party is not even here.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Where is the leader of the Labour party?

Mr. Healey: My right hon. Friend will be here in a minute. I thank the Secretary of State for Defence for offering me a poisoned chalice. I hope to return it to him and watch him drink it to the dregs in the course of my speech.
I shall start by talking about the fundamental issue—about what is happening in the Soviet Union and how we should respond. I am afraid that so far that matter has been largely ignored by both opening speakers. I do not think that anyone any longer denies that something absolutely new and encouraging has been happening inside the Soviet Union since Mr. Gorbachev became general secretary. The incompetence and corruption of the Soviet bureaucracy is now castigated every day in the newspapers, officers of the KGB have been imprisoned for maltreating journalists and I noticed this morning that even Mr. Bernard Levin had left his machine-gun post unmanned on the Golan Heights to express his views about what was happening in the Soviet Union and, very reluctantly, to specultate that just possibly the whole system is beginning to transform itself.
Perhaps it is still too early to feel confident about how the internal situation in the Soviet Union will develop over the next few years. However, the evidence about fundamental changes in Soviet foreign policy is now overwhelming and highly encouraging. Last April Mr. Gorbachev used the jargon of dialectic materialism to renounce the doctrine of the inevitable conflict between the two camps that has guided Soviet foreign policy since the time of Lenin. He spelt out in more detail his new ideas about the world to the Soviet central committee and to the recent international forum in Moscow this year.
It is clear to all observers that he now believes two things which are quite new for a Soviet leader. First, that in the nuclear age security must be based on co-operation with one's political opponents rather than on a continuing arms race with them, and that both sides in their military arrangements should pursue purely defensive strategies. That was a central theme in his speech to the Moscow forum. The second fact that is emerging, not only from discussions like those recently attended by Professor Erickson but also from Soviet behaviour, is that the Soviet Government now accept that it is impossible to achieve military superiority in an arms race, that even equality is unnecessary and that the objective is sufficiency.
So far the only Western statesman who has had the wisdom to recognise and admit this in public is the West German Foreign Secretary Mr. Genscher in an impressive speech at Davos at the beginning of February, to which I had the privilege of listening. Since Mr. Genscher spoke, the truth of his remarks has been borne out by what Mr. Gorbachev said 10 days ago in Moscow. He accepted the zero option for intermediate nuclear forces that was first put to Mr. Brezhnev by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) and me in September 1981 and adopted by NATO and President Reagan in November 1981.
The Secretary of State for Defence has said a good deal this afternoon about the reasons why that was put forward. It was not, with respect to him, a concession to Western strength, a response to the deployment of cruise and Pershing—first of all, because cruise and Pershing have already been matched since their deployment by the bringing forward of SS22 and perhaps SS23 missiles to Czechoslovakia and East Germany, and by the patrolling of submarine-launched cruise missiles off both American coasts.
I am rather surprised that the leader of the Social Democratic party should have taken so much credit in that outburst of his last week for the response to the cruise and Pershing deployment, when, as has been pointed out already, he and his Liberal colleagues voted against that specific proposal, side by side and shoulder to shoulder with the Labour party, in the only debate that we held on the matter before deployment, in 1983.

Mr. Maples: Despite all the exciting and encouraging noises coming out of the Soviet Union at the moment, does the right hon. Gentleman really think that Mr. Gorbachev would he offering to withdraw all SS20s from Europe if NATO had not deployed cruise missiles?

Mr. Healey: This is the question that I am immediately coming to. The striking thing about the zero option is that it is not a concession to Western strength; it is a concession from Soviet strength.
As the Secretary of State for Defence pointed out—this was confirmed yesterday by the American negotiator in Geneva— the zero option means that the Soviet Union will dismantle over three times as many missiles as NATO will dismantle and many more than three times as many warheads. If one adds in the Soviet missiles already deployed in the far east, they will have to be reduced from, I think, about 130 to some 33.
The plain fact is that this is a remarkable proposal. I suspect that General Rogers may be right in saying that some of the Western Governments who put it forward in 1981 did so only because they thought that the Soviet Government were certain to reject it. That was General Rogers's speculation in a speech that he made on the Gorbachev offer last week.
Since it was NATO which first proposed the zero option some five years ago, one would expect the Western Alliance to give it an immediate, unanimous and positive response. Yet the leaders of the Western Alliance are now running around like chickens with their heads chopped off. Oddly enough, the only Government who seem united and positive in their response are the Government who, in previous episodes of arms discussion, have been divided— the Government in Washington. For the first time

since President Reagan came to power, Mr. Shultz, Mr. Weinberger, Mr. Nitze and Mr. Perle are all offering a welcome to Mr. Gorbachev's speech.
But that is far from being true elsewhere in the Alliance. NATO is behaving more like the alliance in this House than the Alliance of Western Governments. The Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, welcomed the proposals, but the Supreme Allied Commander, General Rogers, said that they gave him "gas pains" and said that they are unacceptable unless there is a simultaneous agreement, not only on short-range intermediate nuclear forces, but on chemical weapons and on conventional weapons.
In France, there is public disagreement. The President and the Prime Minister have pronounced themselves in favour; both the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister have publicly pronounced themselves against. In West Germany, on the other hand, the Foreign Minister is in favour and the Defence Minister is against.
In Britain, the Gorbachev speech was met over the following two days by an avalanche of negative briefing, largely emanating, I understand, from No. 10 Downing street, which culminated in the extraordinary performance of the Prime Minister at Question Time last Thursday, when she brought the dinosaurs on her Back Benches shambling out of their caves to grunt approval of what she said because they thought that she was taking a bold, negative posture, as against the wet, wimpish posture of the American President— and, by God, they have actually put down an early-day motion in those terms.
The Prime Minister won tile approval of the dinosaurs because she insisted that last Thursday there was a 9: 1 superiority in short-range intermediate nuclear forces—those with a range of between 500 and 1,000 km—and that this must be corrected at the same time— she repeated this again and again and again—as there was an agreement on intermediate nuclear forces.
Yet in his broadcast yesterday, the Foreign Secretary took exactly the opposite view. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State for Defence agreed with him, rather than with the Prime Minister , I do not suppose that he is looking forward to his next meeting with "Attila the Hen", but still I do not suppose that he looked forward very much to his last meeting.
The plain fact is that what the Foreign Secretary said, and the Secretary of State for Defence repeated today, is that there must be some constraints on short-range intermediate nuclear forces in the same treaty as INF'. Unlike the Secretary of State for Defence—who was a bit nervous about revealing that he either had or had not seen the draft treaty that the Russians have been reading for the last five days— the proposal in the American treaty is quite clear.
It is that the Russians should remove the SS22 and SS23 missiles which they brought forward— the right hon. Gentleman is quite right about that—to East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and that they should freeze their superiority of 9:1 and not increase their superiority so as to circumvent the removal of the intermediate nuclear forces. That is a completely different proposal and exactly the opposite of what the Prime Minister seemed to be saying last week.
Indeed, I was interested in the fact that Mr. Matthew Parris— one of our late colleagues, a former Conservative MP and a former member of the Prime Minister's kitchen cabinet—told the Foreign Secretary, after Mr. Parris had carefully deployed all the Prime


Minister's arguments against agreeing to an INF treaty, that his position appeared to be just like a Conservative caricature of the Labour party's position.
I can see why Mr. Parris said that, and I can see why the Secretary of State for Defence is looking so thoughtful when I repeat it— because the American policy, endorsed by the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence, is to freeze the Soviet 9:1 advantage in SRINF and then begin to negotiate it after the treaty on INF is signed.
I see that the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute this. The only difference is that the Americans at Reykjavik said that they asserted the right to raise their number of SRINF to match those deployed by the Soviet Union. But their negotiators have since made it clear in Geneva, according to the newspapers, that they have no intention of taking advantage of that right. So we are going, in my view quite rightly, for an INF agreement which freezes a 9: 1 superiority in SRINF and leaves that for negotiation immediately afterwards.
The question that we must ask ourselves is, if the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence are so convinced that this is the right policy, why has the Prime Minister tried to overthrow it—and on the eve of a visit to Moscow in which we assume that she was hoping to cut what the Italians call "una bella figura"? I think that there are three reasons. They are pretty obvious. The first is that she has been hoping to use her visit to Moscow as she, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister used his last visit—for self-advertisement for election purposes. That is not my phrase but that of the spokesman of the Soviet Foreign Office, Mr. Gerasimov, who was extremely irritated by some of the things which Ministers have said about their recent discussions with the Soviet Union.
The Conservative party's election strategy is based on reviving the psychoses of the cold war, the suggestion that there has been no real change in the Soviet Union since the days of Stalin and that the Russians would drop nuclear weapons on us if ever we adopted the same defence policy as most of the other NATO countries already have. We saw that in a recent and disgusting party political broadcast, a recent advertisement placed by the Conservative party in the Daily Express and in the quite disgraceful film which, I am glad to say, embarrassed even the Defence Secretary when he saw it, and which has been produced by the Ministry of Defence for circulation to schoolchildren.
The second reason why the Government, or the Prime Minister, have sought to torpedo the INF discussions is that, as she admitted in her communique signed at Camp David the other day, any agreement on nuclear weapons will make conventional forces more important. She knows that she is gravely weakening our conventional forces to pay for the Trident submarine programme. We have had a concatenation of military officers, starting with Major Lord Morpeth through General Frank Kitson up to Field Marshal Lord Bramall, who said in The Times this morning that if the Government go on like this, they will be shooting themselves in the foot and gravely damaging the morale of the British Army.

Mr. Jim Spicer: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the weakening of our defence forces, but his policy and that of his party is to put our

corps in Germany in an impossible position in which they could not hold one inch of ground on that important central front. He knows that and would never have supported such a policy in the past, so why on earth is he supporting it at the moment?

Mr. Healey: The hon. and, perhaps, gallant Member is talking tripe. If he reads the lengthy and thoughtful report of The Economist's defence correspondent, Mr. Meachin, last August, he will find that soldiers in the Rhine Army are confident of holding a Soviet attack. We also have the word of General Rogers, the supreme allied commander, that there is in any case no danger of a Soviet attack out of the blue.

Mr. Spicer: With no nuclear forces?

Mr. Healey: Yes, with no nuclear weapons. They were talking about the conventional capability. No British Army in Germany has ever carried out an exercise which involves the use of nuclear weapons because it has not the slightest idea how it would be possible to fight a war with nuclear weapons. Field Marshal Lord Carver and Lord Louis Mountbatten have said that it would be quite impossible ever to fight such a war.

Mr. Younger: In view of his usual marvellous array of name-dropping, which, according to my calculations, has now got to 11, and as the right hon. Gentleman has included The Economist of last August, would he care to look at this week's The Economist in which the main leading article is a devasting critique of everything that the Labour party stands for in defence?

Mr. Healey: I apologise for referring to Field Marshal Lord Bramall. I thought that, possibly, his name would impress the right hon. Gentleman, but the right hon. Gentleman is new to the job so I dare say that he has never even heard of him.
There is one thing that I should say about The Economist, however. The first six or seven pages are absolute tripe. The stuff that is good is the reporting which follows in the middle and latter part. I am sure that many Conservative Members share my view.
The third reason why the Prime Minister does not want an agreement on INF is that she knows that the next stage will be negotiations on strategic nuclear forces and that, in those negotiations, the Trident submarine programme is bound to be involved because there is not a cat in hell's chance of the United States providing Britain with Trident missiles if it has already agreed, as it is committed to try to do, to abolish all strategic ballistic missiles by 1995.
I should like to congratulate the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary—this is the poisoned chalice that I told the right hon. Gentleman was coming—on trying once again to lead the Prime Minister back to reality. They have both had this problem ever since they have been in office. The Foreign Secretary had it only the other day with Hong Kong and Lord Carrington had it in spades with Rhodesia and many other issues.
The interesting thing about the Foreign Secretary's speech yesterday is that he went a little further and was a little franker than the Defence Secretary today. First, he utterly rejected the view of General Rogers, which was repeated by some Conservative Back Benchers a moment ago, that intermediate nuclear forces on the NATO side are a vital rung on the ladder of escalation. That was the


initial reason why the NATO military tried to persuade NATO to introduce these weapons. It was not because of the SS20s, but as a rung on the ladder of escalation.
Secondly. the Foreign Secretary, not perhaps fully understanding what he was doing, also rejected the strategy of flexible response which depends on the concept—

Mr. Wilkinson: No, he did not.

Mr. Healey: With great respect, I know a little about this because I introduced this strategy 20 years ago. I just want to quote what he said.

Mr. Wilkinson: Who?

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary. He said yesterday that he does not believe that it is possible to have a number of steps on a ladder, but that he favours uncertainty. We now have the Howe uncertainty principle to join the Heizenberg uncertainty principle. He said that it would be all right because we have what he bizarrely called a carnival of nuclear options. There is a circus element in the Foreign Secretary's approach to these problems and it is different from the way in which the NATO military look at it.
Thirdly, the Foreign Secretary fully supported the American proposals at Geneva which the Secretary of State for Defence has or has not seen but is not telling us about — although the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Government know them off by heart by now and although they have been rejected by the Prime Minister. He appeared to be quite relaxed about NATO's conventional position. He could not easily take up a different stance because he expressed those views in an interesting lecture which he gave to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies only two months ago. He said then that the SRINF that he wanted dealt with were the SS22s and SS23s in Czechoslovakia and the German Democratic Republic. Mr. Gorbachev has already undertaken to withdraw them with the destruction of the SS20s when the time comes.

Mr. Wilkinson: No, he has not.

Mr. Healey: Oh yes he has.

Mr. Wilkinson: The general secretary of the Communist party has made no undertaking to withdraw the SS22s and SS23s. He has suggested that if a zero option agreement is reached he would consider negotiating their future, which is quite different.

Mr. Healey: With great respect, I have the text here and I shall read it out to the House in a moment. Mr. Gorbachev repeated what the Warsaw pact as a whole said at its meeting last June— that those weapons were put forward only because of the Western deployment of cruise and Pershing and that they would be withdrawn the moment an INF agreement was reached. Beyond that, he agreed to freeze the 9:1 disparity on the rest.
It is not surprising that the position of the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence this afternoon may be somewhat disappointing to those whose imagination was inflamed by the Prime Minister's remarks during Question Time. However, the plain fact is that we all know perfectly well—and this has been said many times by the Foreign Secretary—that disarmament will be achieved only step by step. If we do not reach the first step, the others will not follow.
As the Prime Minister agreed with President Reagan at Camp David, the first step must be agreement on the INF. Then we can discuss the shorter-range intermediate nuclear forces, where the imbalance is nothing like 9:1. We can achieve that only by leaving many of the NATO nuclear weapons out of account. Taking the shorter range forces as a whole, from the lowest to the highest, once cruise and Pershing have gone the United States will have 4,650 warheads in Europe with another 1,900 promised in case of tension. That includes the F111 bombers in Britain, which can drop bombs on Moscow, and, of course, the 400 Poseidon.

Mr. Cash: They will not be there.

Mr. Healey: They will not be there if we get an agreement on SRINF, which is what we want, and on the 400 Poseidon missiles, which are still allocated to SACEUR after the decision on deployment of cruise and Pershing.
The aim in the SRINF negotiations should be to get nuclear weapons out of Europe and to have a zero option for SRINF, just as we hope to have one for the INF. If that can be achieved, substantial cuts in conventional forces will be needed to provide a much better conventional balance. The imbalance is nothing like as great as some propaganda suggests. It is close to 1.2:1 if we take account of the military capability of NATO and the Warsaw pact in armoured defence equipment. The man who has argued that most persuasively, ambassador John Dean, for eight years conducted the MBFR negotiations for the United States in Vienna.
When the impending talks take place we should act on the advice of Mr. Genscher, which is that both sides should aim to be capable of only defensive operations, and not take an offensive stance.
We stand on the verge of a historic opportunity. If we achieve the deal on the LRINF which is in our grasp—the American and Soviet negotiators clearly think the same—we can start a process that gives the world new hope for peace through co-operation. It is desperately urgent to start that process, otherwise the prospect of proliferation in other countries will become imminent. There is already a nuclear rivalry between India and Pakistan on the subcontinent, and nuclear competition between Israel and the Arabs will be close behind. I fear that in the process of producing a new basis for world peace and security, there is no chance of the British Government taking the lead. The leadership is now with the United States and West Germany, with Britain far behind. However, I hope, at least, that what the Secretary of State for Defence has said today, and what the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, will persuade the British Prime Minister to remove the new obstacles to agreement that she rolled out into the road last Thursday.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: It is a pity that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) did not accept the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to talk about the policy of the Labour party. Rather than defend that policy, the right hon. Gentleman chose to defend the policy of Mr. Gorbachev. Apart from that, because of his usual knock-about, radio commentary style, I could not interpret what he was saying.
The subject of disarmament is extremely complicated. It has dragged on for years. It has attracted acronyms and


nicknames galore and only a few people wish to thread their way through the debating minefield. As weapons change, and disarmament talks change, too, surely our present interests and objectives are fairly easy to identify. They are that we must not be left exposed to the much stronger conventional forces of the Eastern bloc. Some people say that we could and should rearm conventionally to the extent necessary to hold them off. In theory we could do that, but at the price of converting ourselves into an armed camp like Nazi Germany in the 1930s and Soviet Russia today.

Sir Antony Buck: And by bringing back conscription.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: As my hon. and learned Friend says, we would have to bring back conscription.
I cannot think of a more dangerous situation. We are talking about two blocs armed to the teeth, both believing that, because the weapons are conventional, it might be possible to win a war. That part of the Labour party that believes in defence would bring about just such a position. We would return to the uncertainties of the 1930s, and the only certainty would be that sooner or later war would break out.
If everyone is sure that, because of the presence of nuclear weapons, no one can possibly win a war, there will be no war. To be more precise, our nuclear weapons must be of two particular types. First, we need battlefield nuclear weapons to counter conventional superiority; and, secondly, we need strategic nuclear weapons to ensure that Russia realises that her homeland would not escape. If we had those two types of weapons, there would be no war.
People may say that battlefield nuclear weapons are not meant to be used, and that if they were used war would escalate. So it would and, because the Russians also know that, they will not use them and will not start anything. If we have only strategic nuclear weapons and can only respond to a conventional defeat or impending defeat by self-destruction and blowing up the world, everyone knows that we would not do it. Such a weapon is incredible. It will not be used. One would need the inexorable logic of General de Gaulle to make that possible.
The intermediate weapons can go, provided that the other two types stay and that there are restraints on them, as suggested at Camp David after Reykjavik. Prior to the talks at Reykjavik, and immediately afterwards, I feared that the United States might press us too hard to come to some sort of agreement—and, even now, I have a sneaking feeling that the United States' President needs some kind of political prestige, and therefore might go a little too far for us. But I noted this morning that Mr. Max Kampelman, the negotiator for the United States, is reported to have said that he understands our need for short-range weapons.
There can be no doubt that the United States wants the agreement to succeed, and I believe that Mr. Gorbachev also wants it to succeed. Perhaps his principal reason for that is economic. The Soviet Union already lags far behind the United States and Europe economically, and it is falling further behind every day. In the year 2000 the gross national product of the Soviet Union will be half that of the United States and of Europe; and I do believe that the Communist system and technological age are even more

remarkably inappropriate to bring economic welfare and prosperity to the USSR. Nevertheless, if it was not necessary for the Soviet Union to spend so much on armaments in the short term, that would obviously be some weight off the shoulders of the population.
Therefore, I hope that when the Prime Minister goes to Moscow, she will insist that the two sorts of nuclear weapons are necessary to us. I do not insist that they should match absolutely in numbers. We should have enough for our own purposes. If the others wish to keep more, that does not matter because they will not be used if we have them in sufficient quantity. We can do without the INF and the two superpowers could sharply reduce their strategic weapons without any loss of security to either. If chemical weapons could be thrown into the agreements as well, so much the better.
All those things depend on proper verification and negotiation. Those negotiations will take place because the Russians have seen that they will not get their way by our abandoning our weapons and being unwilling to defend ourselves.
If we get this preliminary step-by-step agreement about INF, that may create the climate of confidence upon which other negotiations and steps can be taken to secure the peace of our world.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) referred to the importance and necessity of step-by-step negotiations. That seems to be the right approach in all these matters. The hon. Member for Stroud made many points with which I agree.
However, I should like to go back a little further. I want to support the agreement put forward by the hon. Gentleman, but there is no doubt that when we first approached this question in about 1977 or 1978, although there were other reasons for considering cruise and Pershing, there was no doubt that the impetus that led us to believe that it might be necessary to deploy them if we could not reach agreement was the deployment of the SS20s. Undoubtedly, that led us to consider the matter carefully. At the Guadelupe meeting, which I attended with other Heads of Government and state, we agreed that we would make a further effort with the Soviet Union to secure if we could the withdrawal of the SS20s that had already been deployed. At the time, there were relatively few, about 20 or 30. If we could do that, we would seriously consider, as a measure of confidence, not proceeding with cruise and Pershing.
It seems that, eight years later, that is exactly the position to which we have returned, except that there have been changes in the deployment of other weapons. We still have to decide whether the bargain is worthwhile. I asked Mr. Gromyko about that after I had ceased to be the leader of the Labour party. He was adamant in his refusal to withdraw the SS20s, under any circumstances or in any conditions. I warned him at the time that if he insisted on continuing with that deployment, despite the agitation and protest in this country and elsewhere, I had no doubt that NATO would then deploy cruise and Pershing. He replied, "If that is the case, we must go ahead." It was one of the gloomiest interviews that I have had, because once again we were ratcheting up nuclear arms.
However, I have no doubt that our expressed determination to go ahead and deploy the SS20s and Pershing brought him back to the negotiating table. That is a lesson for people to learn now. One does not have to use the rhetoric of the United States. The personal abuse and the level to which the American Administration descended in the earlier part of President Reagan's tenure of office was deplorable. There is no need to use that kind of language to be firm. For what it is worth, my experience is that the Russians will pocket any concession that is made and say "Thank you" but give nothing in return. One must negotiate at every level.
After the Prime Minister spoke last week, I detected that we were apparently unwilling to show any confidence in securing an agreement with the Soviet Union. That is disappearing in this debate and the Foreign Secretary yesterday and the Defence Secretary this afternoon have gone some way to dispelling that. However, if that were so, there would be no hope for our Western world. There has to be some measure of confidence between us. I summed that up many years ago by saying, "Compete where we must, and co-operate where we can", and provided that we can reach agreements with the Soviet Union that are worthwhile to both sides, that must be of value to our people.
The latest proposal is worthwhile and we should accept it, subject, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, to proper verification. The proposal that the Soviet Union's 100 SS20s might be put into one military base at Novasibirsk is a good idea because it would make for proper and easy verification, and inspire the confidence that is necessary if we are to proceed to the next step. Assuming that we can get this agreement, we cannot leave it there.
Indeed, as far as I can see, after the meeting of the political bureau of the Communist party of the Soviet Union Mr. Gorbachev did not want to leave it there. He said:
As soon as an agreement on eliminating Soviet and United States medium-range missiles in Europe is signed, the Soviet Union will withdraw longer range theatre missiles from the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia by agreement with the governments of those countries, the missiles which had been deployed there as measures in reply to the deployment of Pershing-II and cruise missiles in Western Europe.
That should be a subject of discussion between us and not solely between the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe. The question remains, what happens, where they go and how far.
Mr. Gorbachev continued by making a further proposal:
As far as other theatre missiles are concerned, we are prepared to begin talks immediately with a view to reducing and fully eliminating them.
Both sides could reduce those theatre nuclear missiles. Whatever the disparity, there would be no disadvantage to us in doing so.
Above all, General Secretary Gorbachev stated:
the Soviet Government still considers it highly important to reach agreement on substantial limitation and then elimination of strategic arms.
Elimination is a long way away but substantial limitation is possible.
I hope that when the Prime Minister goes to Moscow she will take the following line with General Secretary Gorbachev. If we get this agreement on intermediate-range nuclear missiles, which would be of great value in beginning to build an element of confidence in the

relationship between the two sides, she should say. "We in the West would be willing to reduce our strategic missiles if you would do the same by at least 50 per cent." If both sides cut 50 per cent. off the level of their strategic nuclear missiles, we would both still be hopelessly over-insured and paying far too big a premium.
Whatever the economic and financial consequences of doing that, the confidence that would begin to emerge in other directions would transform the position of the West and the East. A 50 per cent. reduction would be worthwhile. Obviously, our strategic nuclear weapons will be included in that. We should not resist including them in the calculation of both sides. I could never understand why the Soviet Union should be expected to exclude from the total calculation all the French and British strategic nuclear missiles, which was a line we took at one time. They must be included. They should not have been included in the nuclear intermediate range because they are outside that. If I were Mr. Gorbachev, I would insist on including in the calculation of strategic nuclear missiles ranged against me, not only American missiles, but French and British missiles. The total number of missiles must be counted. However, that does not mean that we must discard them. It may mean that there must be sonic reduction.
The question whether we go ahead with Trident is a moot point. Everyone who considers this matter must be concerned, as I am, about the level of our conventional forces. I am particularly worried about the naval element. We must review this constantly. I would not take a fixed view on Trident for ever and I would not abandon it now. The situation may change. If there is an important stragetic agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union, we may want to consider where we lit into the picture. Certainly we should not give up Trident up for nothing. We must negotiate cur way out of this.
My view is well known and I do not intend to develop it further. I strongly applaud the Labour party's attitude to building conventional forces. The way in which it has focused on that has been of value to the country and I hope it will continue to do so. I hope that all hon. Members, wherever we may sit, will continue to review the changing circumstances in defence as events occur. The position today is certainly not the position of four years ago and it is even less the position when. I left office. No one should adopt a fixed position for ever and allow considerations on defence weapons to be turned into ideology. That would be absurd.
I am glad about what the Secretary of State said this afternoon. I hope we shall support the approach that has been made in Geneva by the United States. If so, the world will have made a turning for the better.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The last. words of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) are of the greatest importance and I am sure that his support for the initiative in Geneva will add great weight to those considerations.
As the Member for Parliament for Greenham common, and as one who has INF missiles in his constituency, it is hardly surprising that I welcome Mr. Gorbachev's positive response to the Western position over the zero option and the withdrawal of intermediate range nuclear missiles. It is the fulfilment of the West's declared policy which began at the start of this decade that no cruise or Pershing II


missiles will be deployed in NATO if the Soviet Union dismantles its SS20 force. Clearly, although we have been forced to deploy cruise and Pershing II because of Soviet intransigence, now that it has seen the error of its ways, who can do other than applaud it?
From the speeches so far, there is a danger of us all being sure that in Mr. Gorbachev's statement about moving towards the dismantling of medium-range missiles his definition of those missiles is the same as it is in Western Europe. In his statement he used three different descriptions for nuclear missiles in Europe. He described medium-range missiles, enhanced-range operational-tactical missiles and operational-tactical missiles. The question of definition will play an important part in the considerations at Geneva. Clearly, it is vital that we and the Soviet Union think in exactly the same terms.
If to the Soviet Union the zero option simply means withdrawing SS20s in exchange for withdrawing cruise and Pershing IIs, but leaving SS12s, SS22s and SS23s in place—weapons which can strike deep into Western Europe as far as Great Britain—we must all think again about the possible benefits of the treaty that seem to be within our grasp.
Verification appears to be a thorny issue. Satellite reconnaissance can do so much, but only so much. Unless each side is willing to allow something more, I find it difficult to know how a treaty can be made to stick. It is possible to hide missiles out of sight of satellites, so something like on-the-spot verification will be crucial.
If I sound marginally sceptical, it is because I have my constituents in mind. They accepted cruise missiles, not because they wanted a new generation of missiles in their midst at Greenham common, but because the continued security of NATO seemed to demand the deployment of those weapons. They believed, as I believed, that multilateral disarmament was the only safe way to reduce the nuclear threat. The question to which we require an answer is whether the withdrawal of SS20s, cruise and Pershing Hs will leave Western Europe as secure in the future as it is at present, or whether other circumstances have been created which reduce the effect of the zero option.
One is bound to ask, what has happened to make the Soviets change their mind from their apparently intransigent stand at the beginning of this decade to their present position? Within that change of stance there is now a willingness to uncouple an arms agreement on INF weapons from a halt to the American strategic defence initiative to consider the zero option as a relevant proposition.
I do not rule out the obvious differences which Mr. Gorbachev has made to East-West relations, but the difference seems to lie in his perception of the cold war—something on which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) touched. Clearly, Mr. Gorbachev does not believe that the peace movement, CND, the Greenham protesters, the Greens in West Germany or even the Opposition's policy are likely to have much effect on the West's policies for the defence of Western Europe. That suggests that he does not think that the Opposition will win the general election.
Mr. Gorbachev also knows that the present American Administration will not abandon the SDI. Therefore, he seems to have calculated that what is necessary for Soviet

security is a reduction in the immediate interface between the nuclear forces of the United States of America and the USSR in Western Europe. Perhaps the limited flight time of Pershing Hs from West to East has created too great a threat in his mind for him to feel easy leaving those weapons in West Germany. Perhaps he is seeking to lower the nuclear threshold.
One of the inevitable results of the iron curtain since it fell across Europe 40 years ago has been to make Europe the most likely battlefield for world war three. Yet it would be a battlefield in which the inhabitants were not really the protagonists. The Warsaw pact without the Soviet Union poses no real threat to the Western European members of NATO, but once the Soviet Union and America are included in the groupings those countries become involved in a different way. While the Soviet Union dominates the Warsaw pact, who can think of any reduction in the American involvement in NATO, except with profound unease?
Perhaps Mr. Gorbachev believes that Europe would be more secure if the face-to-face confrontation of the superpowers was of a different order, or was of a kind which compelled the United States of America to retaliate with long-range missiles at a Soviet Union seeking to create a nuclear shield for itself. That is why I believe the Soviet unwillingness to bring its short-range nuclear missiles more into line with NATO's numbers—we have already heard that the disparity is about 9: 1 in the Warsaw pact's advantage—is an acid test of Soviet good faith in negotiating over INF. Otherwise one will be tempted to believe that the INF proposal is an attempt to gain a different nuclear advantage for the Soviets which, taken with their advantage in conventional weapons, could give us all cause for renewed anxiety.
Those are my worries. They must sound like a halfhearted response to the most positive initiative of the superpowers that we have heard for at least a decade. When it comes to making a choice between peace and disarmament, I choose peace. The two are not necessarily synonymous.
The Geneva talks and the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Moscow at the end of the month are clearly crucial. A satisfactory outcome must be judged not just in terms of advantage to the superpowers but by reference to the peace and security of Europe. That is why I hope that our American allies will fully consult us—and, indeed, all members of NATO in Europe. I hope, too, that any agreement will not put the possibility of a conventional European war back on the agenda. Sometimes in our desire to be rid of nuclear weapons we lose sight of that possibility, but we must remember that the prospect of a winnable conventional war, far from allowing us to sleep more easily in our beds, would give us cause for the greatest concern.
We should be sceptical about all the proposals on the table. We must probe and define and we must be sure that the verification arrangements are such that the treaty, if it is signed, will last.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). Both he and I took part in some of the numerous debates before the arrival of cruise missiles at Greenham common. It is worth noting that, notwithstanding his caution and reticence, even he seems to accept in principle


the case for making an agreement a reality in the context of the Gorbachev initiative and the American counterproposal on long-range intermediate nuclear force missiles in Europe.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who opened the debate for the Opposition, spoke about the changes that are taking place in the Soviet Union. Any objective observer must believe that something potentially important is under way in the Soviet Union. It is too early to say how far that will develop, but an objective analysis of the attitudes of the United States and the Soviet Union over the past few years to the overriding issue of nuclear weapons cannot but lead many people in the West—including myself—to the view that the approach of the Soviet Union has been more positive and responsible than that of the United States.
I hope that we are moving into a phase in which both superpowers will he constructive and will make real progress towards cuts in their nuclear arsenals. I refer in particular to the historic proposals unveiled by Mr. Gorbachev on 15 January 1986. They involved three important stages in the removal of nuclear weapons, and included important concessions by the Soviet Union.
It was in that statement that Mr. Gorbachev first acknowledged that the Soviet Union was prepared to set on one side the existence of the French and British strategic nuclear weapons, provided that they were not expanded and that we did not replace Polaris with Trident. In Reykjavik, the Soviet Union was dropping any link between British and French nuclear weapons and INF. We are now discussing the removal from the Reykjavik package the proposal that involved the Soviet Union being allowed to keep 100 SS20 warheads in Asia and the Americans being allowed to keep 100 long-range INF missiles in the United States.
It is important to recognise that an agreement would not remove the threat of nuclear war overnight. However, it would be an important advance. I approach this subject from a standpoint very different from that of the Secretary of State. I want the removal of all nuclear weapons from Europe. I realise that that may take some time, and that the French nuclear weapons may be the last to go, but I am prepared to live with French weapons in Europe for an interim period. I believe that the world would be a safer place if nuclear weapons were confined to United States territory and Soviet territory—with China presumably keeping its weapons.
It is sad that the Government have not been prepared to take a positive approach in areas where we count and have influence. I refer especially to their failure to make real progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. That is a role that a British Government should play. They should remove all nuclear weapons and bases from British territory. They should campaign for the removal of nuclear weapons from Europe. Above all, they should use their influence throughout the world, and in the forums where they are still represented, to achieve real progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, the real danger in coming years is that there will be a nuclear exchange not in central Europe but in, for example, the middle east or in Pakistan, where a key figure has recently openly admitted that nuclear weapons have been developed.
Verification is a most important issue. One of the main arguments that we deployed against cruise missiles was

that their numbers were exceedingly difficult to verify under an agreement. It is true that the location of bases in Europe is more or less common knowledge and that, therefore, it should not be too difficult to reassure the Soviet Union on the removal of Pershing II and cruise from Western Europe. Nevertheless, the challenge of verification may be one of great benefit to future agreements. As the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) said, we have to consider the wish of the Soviet Union to verify United States compliance with limitation of the deployment of the weapons on its own soil. I hope that the attitude of the British Government to verification in this area will be more convincing and more genuine than in their attitude to progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. Everyone accepts that an agreement on verification would have to include on-site inspection as well as satellite verification. But such an agreement will be important and may be of use in an agreement to cut the United States and USSR strategic arsenals by 50 per cent. I note that Mr. Shultz referred to that over the weekend.
Let us consider the issue of short-range INF weapons. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff. South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) said, the Soviet Union's position on that is very clear. It is the desire of Opposition Members that NATO—in this context, that means the United States—will not use that argument to present, or indeed sabotage, an agreement on intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
I suspect that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary adopt a more reasonable, less war-like approach to these matters than the Prime Minister and that they genuinely wish an agreement to be reached. It must be remembered, too, that we are in the run-up to a general election. The chances are that the agreement will not be signed until next year. That seems to be common ground between the two sides, and that view has certainly been expressed by the United States Administration. However, it is to be hoped that talks will be under way and that real progress is made between the United States and the Soviet Union. It is their agreement; they are the parties directly involved. I hope that the Prime Minister—or any other European leader—will not manage to undermine progress, as some people fear. I hope that an important advance will be made, not because the removal of the missiles will suddenly transform Europe into a safer place, but because an agreement would help to build the world's confidence in the superpowers and, more important, confidence between East and West.
There are two ways to correct the conventional imbalance. One is for us to increase conventional forces in Western Europe. The other is to make real progress on mutual and balanced force reduction talks and negotiations on the conventional side. I have not conceded that there is the huge conventional imbalance about which Conservative Members like to speak. No matter how much confidence we have in the developments that may be taking place in the Soviet Union, it is common ground that we have to defend Western Europe. There is no suggestion that we should unilaterally reduce the defence of Western Europe against the Soviet Union. However, I approach these issues from a somewhat different stance. I want to see all nuclear weapons removed from Europe. If we can get an agreement, it will be a real step forward and I hope that the two superpowers will build on it in the future.

6 pm

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I go a long way with what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, except that I do not think that a comprehensive test ban treaty is on the cards until we have made significant improvements in verification. When the hon. Gentleman talked about the reduction of weapon systems in Europe, I assumed that he meant those on a multilateral basis, and that he was speaking in his personal capacity and not reflecting the attitude officially taken by his party.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) raised a point that goes to the root of our problem. We talk about disarmament and arms control, but we all know that it is not just a question of that. We would achieve far more if there were more confidence. I regard these talks not just as a test to see how far we can make progress technologically in reducing weaponry, but as a way to improve the confidence on both sides. That will enable us to take some step, however small, which we hope will lead to bigger steps that will have even greater significance than those that we are contemplating.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made a speech which will be warmly welcomed not only on both sides of the House but by many outside.

Mr. James Callaghan: Do not make trouble.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I do not want to make trouble. The right hon. Gentleman's speech will be welcomed by many.
There are strong reasons for our adopting a positive approach—political, economic and environmental. In this respect, a positive approach must also be practical, if it is not to run into the sand. I see no distinction between the attitudes of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and of the my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has rightly emphasised that, although it is important to take a positive approach, we must not delude ourselves into thinking that the going will be easy. On the contrary, we in Western Europe will have to be courageous in telling our electorate about the real choices that have to be made. In doing so, we shall need to be extremely careful not to arouse expectations that are too high.
It needs to be emphasised that the reality is that a nonnuclear world is not feasible, and will not be so for many years to come. The Soviet Union knows that one reason why it is recognised as a world power is its parity with the United States in advanced nuclear missiles. To base nuclear deterrence on aeroplanes and cruise missiles would put it at a distinct disadvantage because it knows that the United States is well ahead in these weapons. There is no sign that Gorbachev would dare risk the Soviet Union taking such a step, at least for some time.
Secondly, there is no reason for us to suppose that it is in our interests to take a leap in the dark without adequate verification procedures. Thirdly, we all know that it would be folly for the United States to renounce nuclear ballistic missiles while China retains hers and there is probably a nuclear capability in Pakistan and Israel. The British and French will be bound to retain their nuclear forces until such time as substantial progress is made in these factors.
We cannot expect the Soviet Union or the United States unilaterally to do without nuclear ballistic missiles as long as other countries do not make progress. Equally, we shall

not make progress in the negotiating ring until we have solid substantial proof that the progress made by the two superpowers is genuine, enduring and verifiable. In that respect, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will recognise that the Prime Minister has made it clear that if sufficient progress is made between the two superpowers, we in Britain will enter the negotiations and put Trident into the melting pot for future discussion.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most substantial points is on-site verification, and that we cannot rely on satellite?

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Yes, I agree. In many instances, on-site verification will be the right step to take, but I am also aware that there have been considerable advances in electronic technology which may on some occasions make on-site verification not as necessary as once we thought. At the moment, they have to go together.
Another reason why we should not arouse expectations that are too high is that we all know that one of the side effects of relying less on a nuclear deterrent is that we have to build up conventional forces. I cannot see any electorate in Western Europe agreeing to huge expenditure on conventional forces at a time when disarmament and arms control talks are in the air and budgets are already large. There is a prospect of the United States expecting us to bear a heavier conventional burden in Western Europe, which in itself is bound to put additional financial strains on our budgets. Therefore, in terms both of cost and political timing, it would be unrealistic to suppose that we can, overnight, make up for the conventional imbalance between us and the Warsaw pact.
I am not talking about the central region, where there is more of a balance than one had hitherto recognised because of the improvements that we have made. Looking at the West's response to the Soviets, should there be a conventional attack, it is not the central region that we would have to consider. We would have to consider the northern flank as well as the Mediterranean. The danger is in thinking that somehow peace will break out and that we shall get defence on the cheap if we do without nuclear deterrents. These and other dangers were rightly emphasised by General Rogers in the aftermath of Reykjavik. Misgivings on military grounds were voiced when the zero option was first proposed in 1981. Those misgivings by military leaders were overcome by the political argument, which only goes to show how foolish it can be to subordinate defence imperatives to political theory.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth and other Members have told us why the zero option was put forward. We knew that it would not be accepted by the Soviet Union, but we still hoped for better deployment of cruise missiles, while it would help European electors to accept the presence of cruise missiles on their soil.
Six years have gone by and the mistake at Reykjavik to commit the West to appear to accept a zero option with so few and ineffective conditions had to be addressed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right. She spoke for all the European allies when at Camp David she insisted that a zero option on long-range INF must take into account constraints of short-range nuclear systems. I am not suggesting that it is a tidy, logical matter. It would be foolish to expect this or any other European


Government to go into such talks, or to persuade the Americans that it would he in our interest to surrender any of its INF and to expect us to defend ourselves. That would put us in the position of relying almost exclusively on theatre nuclear weapons systems, and conventional weapons, with the back-up of the strategic defence and nuclear defence forces of France. That is the wrong attitude, but it is one that many of the leaders have accepted, including the supreme allied commander.
Nevertheless, there are good reasons for seeking a way forward. A reduction or the elimination of a whole segment of nuclear missiles can enhance stability, provided that it is guided on the whole by the principle of parity.
I do not think that there is, yet, enough trust or confidence for either side to give away too much. The Russians suffer more than we do from mistrust and lack of confidence. They have had that lack of confidence since Tsarist days; it is one of their problems; it is why they have an iron curtain, and why they are so beastly to some of their people and have only recently begun to let a few more out.
We all want peace in the West and, increasingly, those in the Soviet Union who know the high cost of peace want peace and security at less cost. It must not be less security at less cost, because that is not the way to preserve peace but the way to encourage aggression. Many of us in this Chamber appreciate that because we belong to that generation but, increasingly, especially when it comes to the election, we shall be addressing a new generation—the post Vietnam generation, who do not remember that the second world war came about because we were so badly prepared. We gave the impression to totalitarian countries that we were not willing to stand up, not just for preserving the peace, but for the values that we held dear.
In the course of the coming election that will make the argument interesting and stimulating. That is why we have, yet again, to fight this intellectual battle for the retention of strong defence forces which are credible to preserve peace.
Many of us would like to see a shift from nuclear to conventional arms. That must take place under carefully controlled conditions. To suggest otherwise is not just to delude ourselves but to take us on the way to Armageddon.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his excellent speech. I wish to second many of the points that he made. This has been an interesting debate and I thought that the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) was outstanding.
It is interesting that the alliance should have chosen this subject for debate. It certainly leads with its chin. In reality, the SDP would agree with the Conservative party and the Liberals would agree with the Labour party over this issue.
I attended the debate in the House on 24 January 1980 on nuclear weapons. On that occasion the Liberal party defence spokesman, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), said:
In my party, as well as in the Labour party…there is a substantial body of opinion that is totally opposed to the staging of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom. I must put that on record tonight."— [Official Report,24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 756.]

I took the trouble of looking at the vote after the debate. I do not think that my hon. Friend's will be surprised by the result. Some Liberal Members were in one Lobby, some were in another and the majority abstained.
When I was still a schoolboy the House of Commons staged another major debate on nuclear weapons. On that occasion, the Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, opened the debate with a phrase that has remained with me. He said:
What ought we to do? Which way shall we turn to save our lives and the future of the world? It does not matter so much to old people; they are going soon anyway, but I find it poignant to look at youth in all its activity and ardour and, most of all, to watch little children playing their merry games, and wonder what would lie before them if God wearied of mankind."— [Official Report. I March 1955; Vol. 537. c. 1895.]
All of us who took an interest in defence realised the immense threat that was posed to this country by the build-up of the SS20s in Eastern Europe. They were a way of getting round the arms control talks which were under way at that time. We were concerned by the challenge that they presented to our democracy and the democracies of the Atlantic Alliance. Could politicians make unpopular decisions to protect the long-term interests of that Alliance? Britain and NATO came out of that crisis extremely well. It is ghastly for a Secretary of State to have to decide which region should have cruise missiles; which hon. Member should have these obliterating weapons of the nuclear age in his constituency. Full marks should go to the people of Newbury, who have been so robust and sensible in the way that they took on board that particular horror.
While that was occurring, the Opposition were spurning decisions that they had taken in government and spurning the approach that the Labour party had adopted to nuclear weapons since 1945. At the same time, a wave of Soviet propaganda was washing over these shores. Some succumbed as soon as they got their feet wet. Others -I include the Liberal party—rushed down the beach and dived into the waves.
We are faced with a surprising decision by Mr. Gorbachev-a U-turn. But perhaps it is not hard to see now why he made that U-turn. It is too early to say whether the changes inside the Soviet Union are changes of substance or style but, as in the United States, Mr. Gorbachev has his military industrial complex to think about and is in need of a diplomatic success. He has to show his countrymen that his change of style can bring home some bacon for the Soviet Union. Above all. he has to cut back on the cost of his military defence so that he has more money available for consumer affairs inside the Soviet Union.

Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is in the West's interests that Mr. Gorbachev should win that argument internally or lose it?

Mr. Townsend: Obviously it is in the interests of Mr. Gorbachev and of the West that progress should be made, and this is the subject to which 1 wish to turn.
The House will look foolish if it starts putting forward detailed negotiating positions. There are two major obstacles, which have been well covered today— the problems of short-range missiles and of verification. How does one tackle the verification problem? Are satellites sufficient? Should there be on-site inspections? Do we have to go into factories as well as aircraft hangars? This is not


the occasion to go into all that. The Government are right to put forward a tough negotiating stance at this stage; it is in Britain's interests that they should. I detect no difference between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 on this issue. As in the United States, there seems to be a broad measure of agreement as to how to proceed. In Europe, individual politicians will state their different positions. I detect, in general across the Western world, the feeling that something has changed; a new moment has arrived. The tide has come and we must take that tide. Hon. Members may say in a few weeks that I was being vastly over-optimistic and foolish, but this is the moment to look above the molehills, to look to the high ground and see if we can make the breakthrough that our constituents and the people in these islands so desperately want.
I end with a quote that is frequently wrenched from its moorings. It comes from a speech which was made by Lord Mountbatten in Strasbourg in May 1979. He said:
To begin with we are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West. The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and even more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint. Better still, by reduction of nuclear armaments I believe it should he possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation.
Since the debate in which Sir Winston Churchill took part, there has been a gradual escalation of the arms race. Perhaps we now have a chance to reduce some of the nuclear weapons on both sides.

Mr. Jim Spicer: Like many of my hon. Friends, I am puzzled that the SDP should have chosen this subject to debate, particularly as for most of the afternoon the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) has been the only Member on the SDP Bench in support of her party's policy. I hope that she has listened attentively and learnt a lot, particularly from the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan).
The Gorbachev proposals may have been seen as a heaven-sent gift to the Labour and Liberal parties in their headlong pursuit of votes, but I submit that it would be a sad misunderstanding of the situation if we moved too far too fast.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) seemed to be "praying in aid" a complete change of heart in the Soviet Union, of which country we are even hearing the words "emerging democracy", but I have no doubt that we must await implementation of the Helsinki final act before we can believe that there is a major change in the Soviet Union. We are a long way from that.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that if we have achieved this beginning, it is only because of the unity of the West and our determination to stand firm when it was necessary to do so. His Administration took the first decision that, in the face of the threat from the Soviet Union, we should respond by stationing cruise missiles in this country. The Soviet Union did not believe that we would respond, but we did, and we have now reached a beginning in genuine disarmament.
However, it is no good arriving at a starting point unless we can be sure that the West will be united when it goes into negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) voiced the fear that the United States might be tempted to go for quick electoral gain, rushing into an agreement in the hope that the Goverment could regain some of the popularity that they have obviously lost. I do not believe that that will happen. On Friday and Saturday of last week I attended a meeting of the International Democratic Union in Munich, and the chairman of the United States Republican party made it clear that we would and should go forward in unity and that there would be full consultation all the way.
The Soviet Union clearly hopes to exploit divisions in the West, particularly in the United Kingdom. We do not need to waste time on the craven role in defence matters that has been chosen by so many people in the Labour party, but we need a clear and definitive statement on where the SDP and the Liberals stand on nuclear defence. The Liberal party conference went unilateralist last year, while the SDP supported a nuclear deterrent, provided that it did not involve the upgrading of Polaris to Trident. On television last week the leader of the SDP said that such an upgrading would represent a massive enhancement of our nuclear capacity, which he could not accept.
I was puzzled by that statement, because in the same interview the leader of the SDP said that he believed that there was a positive way forward in co-operation with the French. We all know that the French are upgrading their independent nuclear deterrent to achieve exactly what we shall achieve from Polaris and Trident. The French expect to complete their upgrading by 1990. It is an expensive operation and they would welcome support. There is, however, no question of the French giving up their nuclear deterrent. They will be the last ones to move. Does the leader of the SDP have the full-hearted support of the Liberal party and, in particular. the leader of that party for his French policy?
Where and when did detailed discussions about the joint venture take place? We know that there was a lunch and a dinner in Paris, but what further consultations have taken place? Has the cost been examined? I believe that it is a bogus cover-up by the Liberals in an attempt to paper over cracks to regain lost confidence and votes.
There is little division between the SDP and the Conservative party in defence matters, but none of us knows where the Liberals really stand. They were unilateralists in 1984, multilateralists in 1985 and unilateralists again in 1986.

Mr. Beith: rose—

Mr. Spicer: I am not giving way, because of the shortage of time.
We are making just a beginning. The meeting of the International Democratic Union in Munich last week was attended by Danes, Finns, Norwegians, Austrians, Americans, Japanese and others. They all agreed to send a letter of support to our Prime Minister, who is going to Moscow at the end of this month, not only with our best wishes, but with the best wishes of all those who truly hope for a just peace in the world. I delivered that letter, on their behalf, to No. 10 today.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The subject for the debate is all things to all men, in the typical alliance


tradition. We, however, must ask ourselves whether removal of long-range intermediate nuclear forces from both sides of the iron curtain under the zero-zero option would enhance our security. It surprises me that so few people have addressed themselves to this fundamental issue.
In General Secretary Gorbachev, the West is confronted by a leader who is far more formidable and infinitely more dangerous than Mr. Chernenko and Mr. Brezhnev were. He has great propaganda skills, intense determination and great orthodoxy in his personal commitment and loyalty to Communist ideology. Furthermore, he knows how to play on Western public opinion, how to exploit divisions within NATO and how to play on wishful thinking in the West.
The initial dual track decision in 1979 was taken two years after SS20s were first deployed in the western military districts of the Soviet Union. We hoped that our decision would induce the Soviets to dismantle their systems, so that we would not have to modernise our intermediate-range nuclear forces. Of course, that did not happen and the Soviets' SS20 build-up continued inexorably.
In 1981, we persisted with the zero-zero option and suggested again that if the Soviets dismantled their SS20s we would not modernise our INF by the deployment of cruise and Pershing 11 missiles. Once again, the SS20 buildup continued.
From December 1983 we had to put in place our own modernised systems of ground-launched cruise missiles and Pershing II missiles. This was achieved only with very great political difficulty. There were mass demonstrations and critical votes in national Parliaments. We are proud of the decision taken by this House. We and the Federal Republic of Germany, two key countries in the Alliance, were the first to deploy the systems. Since then NATO has begun to deploy them in Italy and Belgium, and ultimately it is hoped that they will be deployed in the Netherlands.
What has transpired since that deployment? The answer is that the Soviets have undertaken another inexorable build-up of short-range systems—SS12s, SS22s and SS23s. They are ballistic missile systems with short flight times and, in common with the SS20s, but perhaps more so, they are a direct threat to Western Europe. They represent a counter- force capability that could knock out our air bases and destroy NATO's command and control facilities. Since the Soviets have a preponderance of short-range systems— 9:1 in their favour— the position vis-a-vis intermediate nuclear systems does not matter so much to them. The Soviets are aware that their short-range systems ensure that they have a capability of launching a pre-emptive strike to knock us out on the ground. Of course, in the process there is the risk that there would be a strategic nuclear response. However, a strategic nuclear response launched by the United States on our behalf is more likely to occur if intermediate-range systems are located on the soil of Western Europe. That crucial linkage was the raison d'etre of our INF modernisation in the first place. Chancellor Schimdt, in his lecture to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, emphasised the point.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others have said that we have other options. We have dual-capable systems, such as the Fills. However, air-launched systems are vulnerable because their response time is slow. We also have quasi-strategic systems, such as

the Poseidon boats. However, with regard to a submarine-launched strategic ballistic missile, one's adversary is riot sure whether he is receiving a strategic response.
I believe that we should proceed with the negotiations, but we should seek a definite quid pro quo. It is crucial to emphasise to our American friends—as has been said by Mr. Giraud, the French Defence Minister and also by Mr. Wörner the German Defence Minister—that Western Europe should address the problem in its totality. That is, we must address it with regard to the conventional balance, the chemical balance and the imbalance with regard to short-range systems. If we are deliberately to pursue a policy that renders us vulnerable—by denying ourselves intermediate-range systems stationed on the soil of Western Europe— we must have a capability to defend Western Europe's retaliatory forces securely.
I have always argued that there is a need for strategic defence against short-range systems. The technology of strategic defence is more important than ever before. Ii is important for point defence—the protection of air bases and command and control centres. New technologies are emerging for this purpose. Furthermore, space-based systems are important because they would be able to intercept ballistic missiles even of a short-range nature, such as the SS22s and the SS23s, in the launch phase.
I am pleased that General Secretary Gorbachev has removed the linkage, imposed at Reykjavik, between the American development of SDI and INF arms control. Unless the West takes countervailing measures, it may be making itself more vulnerable militarily by pursuing the zero-zero option. However, I recognise the political benefits that may arise from such an agreement.

Mr. Reg Freeson: I do not share the pride of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood, (Mr. Wilkinson) at having cruise stationed in Europe. I do not share his hope that those countries that have not completed the stationing of such weapons will do so. There is neither reason for pride nor hope in such an argument, despite the fact that some may argue that there is necessity.
I wish to make some general comments as I do not normally participate in debates in the Chamber—

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Oh!

Mr. Freeson: I do not believe that my observation was humorous. I do not normally join in the debates in the Chamber because I find most of them are devoted to the detailed minutiae that overlook some of the central issues that have faced Britain and people on both sides of the iron curtain for far too long. Indeed, they have been left untackled for too long. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway), who sniggered, may not be aware, unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip- Northwood, that I am an active parliamentarian in the Western European Union parliamentary assembly. I have participated in its debates— agreeably or disagreeably, according to one's point of view.
It is conventional wisdom to point out that nuclear weapons have existed for 40 years during which time there has been no war in Europe—post hoc ergo propter hoc, this is taken as cause and effect. Thus both East and West justify their relentless stockpiling of nuclear weapons. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood illustrated that in his speech. The Russians start storing certain types of


equipment in Eastern Europe and so we start to stockpile other types of equipment. The Russians therefore start stockpiling further forms of equipment and we respond. This stupid, dangerous madness continues.
We are spending about $9·5 billion between the lot of us on building up all forms of offensive defence. We should start considering—that process can begin in the House—developing a non-offensive defence policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is possible to have a non-offensive defensive policy. It is long overdue. It would require a fundamental reshaping of our attitude towards so-called nuclear defence.
Wars have continued despite the so-called deterrent. They have continued on a massive scale throughout the world, beyond Europe. Some tens of millions of people have been killed or wounded. In many cases wars have been waged in the Third world by the superpowers—by proxy. Far too often this country— under whatever Government— has given support to one side in such proxy wars. Millions of people have suffered at the hands of offensive high technology. We have often sold such technology to other countries.
Today there are an estimated 50,000 nuclear weapons, with an explosive power equal to I billion Hiroshimas. I often wonder, having listened to some of the speeches this evening, if people have thought of the implications of providing so-called defence by overkill— if I may use that hackneyed word.
Apart from nuclear weapons, the arms race in conventional weapons, far from stabilising or reducing, has accelerated apace. Far from preventing potential wars this arms race has induced wars in many parts of the world. Directly, if not indirectly, either politically or through our massive arms trade, we are contributing to the death of thousands of people in other parts of the world by the sale of British offensive equipment. Whatever we think of past cause and effect, to behave as we have for the past 40 years will not guarantee peace or provide security in future. We must move from a position of threatened mutual suicide to one of common security. There is no route to world security other than by the progressive reduction and eventual abolition of all offensive weaponry and the introduction of replacement defensive weaponry.
The fundamental duty of politicians is to build the stepping stones, military and political, to that end. Both NATO and the Warsaw pact have missiles in position with flight times of six minutes to centres of command and government. As a result, both sides are moving towards the establishment of fire-on-warning systems that would respond automatically to any assumed missile attack. The dangers of war by accident, including computer error, are thus greatly increased. We need a system of defensive deterrence that is not provocative to others. Such a system should provide an effective and militarily credible defence. It should also reduce the risk in a crisis of pre-emptive attack or war by miscalculation. Those who talk about SDI as such a system are overlooking all the potential for war in space going well beyond the systems that are now proposed for research.
Defence positions should reduce pressure on the East- West arms race by, for example, removing the present possibility of one side reacting to the other side's deployment of new or additional weapons by deploying

more of its own. Our defence policy should improve the atmosphere for detente instead of generating distrust. It should be affordable and acceptable to the public at large.
It is often argued that a defence-only policy would be ineffective and could not win—whatever that may mean in the nuclear age. It is generally agreed, however, that defence is stronger than attack. With the coming of modern technology, it is estimated that an attacker needs to have a superiority over the forces available to the defender of four or five to one. The superior strength of defensive tactics and forces that has been evident throughout the history of warfare is now being strengthened by modern technology. The tank and the capital naval ship may become technically obsolete in modern war with the advent of accurate homing missiles. If the Exocets fired by Argentina had had better fuses, the history of the Falklands war might well have been different. It is difficult to imagine a successful invasion by sea with the intelligent use of homing missiles aimed at the attackers.
It is possible to order military forces so that they can be seen to be entirely defensive and non-provacative, even though each weapon could be used offensively. A country's entire defence posture— its weapons, the training of its forces, its doctrine and its operational manuals— can show clearly whether its forces are for defence only. No one considering the defence forces of Sweden, Austria and Yugoslavia, for example, could assume that they were for any purpose other than defence. These countries do not heighten international tension by provoking anxiety among their neighbours.
Effective defence need not overburden an economy. It is necessary only to consider the relative costs of defence and offensive weapons. A modern battlefield tank costs $3 million while an anti-tank guided missile costs $30,000. A combat aircraft such as the Tornado costs $30 million and a sophisticated missile capable of destroying it, such as the Patriot, costs $1 million, or just over 3 per cent. of the cost of a Tornado.
Along with military steps towards non-aggressive defence policies we need also to work politically towards constructive and peaceful co-existence. We must move away from confrontation politics. The relaxation of tension that would accompany a non-provocative defence position would allow discussions on detente to take place in a much easier atmosphere, and this is not the concern of the superpowers alone. There are forums at which many countries can participate in discussions, as we do in Britain and at international assemblies. It makes the greatest sense to identify politically the issues in which both sides have a common interest. These include a common test ban agreement and moves towards a reduction in nuclear defence weaponry that we have been discussing this evening. There are many other initiatives along those lines.
I find it extremely disturbing that, after several years of paying lip service to the zero option, many parts of Western Europe, including Britain, should start running scared at the first sign of serious negotiations in that direction, and should start erecting all sorts of obstacles to such a move. If we were sincere in what we have been advocating, or claiming to advocate, since the early 1980s, we would put our actions and words where our statements have been in the past. That includes making more progress towards the removal of as many nuclear weapons in Europe as we can, and as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) has called for a nonoffensive defence policy. He said that we must move from a position of threatened mutual suicide. I think that we would all agree with that. We would all read that as a good explanation of the need for a strategic defence initiative. As for the rest of his remarks, I refer him—I do not believe that he was in the Chamber at the time—to the important remarks of his colleague, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), on the history of the past 40 years, which the right hon. Member for Brent, East seeks to write down as a great aberration. However, peace has been preserved for the past 40 years. I recommend the right hon. Gentleman to consider what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, a former Prime Minister, had to say about Western determination having brought the Soviet Union back to the negotiating table. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth speaks with important and significant experience on that issue.
We are debating a subject that is too important for the making of easy party political points. However, the difference between the parties on the Opposition Benches must be stressed. These are differences that the British public must understand when the forthcoming general election takes place. Nothing could have demonstrated more clearly the position of the Labour party than the contrast between the speeches of the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth and for Brent, East.
We all become used to the performances of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and I use "performances" advisedly. He is the living embodiment of that famous old cliché that if one is on a weak wicket, the best thing is to shout. In other words, the best form of defence is attack. According to the right hon. Gentleman, the leaders of the Western nations—I hope that I am not doing him an injustice by misquoting him — are running around like chickens with their heads chopped off. Anyone more like a headless chicken than the right hon. Gentleman, bearing in mind his principles and the things in which he has believed over decades, is hard to imagine. It would appear that his head has been chopped off and thrown into the wastepaper basket. That must be the position when he chooses to defend a policy that he knows is arrant nonsense. He made a ludicrous comparison. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East—I am sorry that he is not in his place now—knows that to be a fact.
We must consider the unfortunate position of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright).

Mr. George Foulkes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about the way in which he attacked my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). It was unworthy of him. I hope that he will also note that, although my right hon. Friend is not present, neither is the Secretary of State for Defence. That is understandable because they both have other engagements. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stop continuing to be a former diplomat and apologist for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Mr. Whitney: I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who was not here when his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East spoke, has the courtesy to read what his right hon.
Friend said. He will then understand the point about the headless chicken, which was the right hon. Gentleman's term for the leaders of western European nations.

Mr. Foulkes: I have heard what my right hon. Friend has said on previous occasions on this matter. I know exactly what he said—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), screaming harridan that she is, will wait, I shall explain that I was not here precisely because I was representing my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East and the Leader of the Opposition at the Commonwealth day service in Westminster Abbey.

Mr. Whitney: I am delighted to have an explanation, which I was not seeking, for the absence of the hon. Gentleman. However, I repeat that if he is making assertions about his right hon. Friend's statement, he had better read it first and then he will learn a little.
Before I deal with SDI, an introduction to which was happily given me by the right hon. Member for Brent, East, I should like to mention the opening bat of the hon. Member for Woolwich on what was for him an extremely sticky wicket, to continue the metaphor. It seemed unkind to give him such a task. He who knows such a lot about NATO defence and understands and is a loyal supporter of NATO was driven into the position, when he was seeking to explain the extraordinary riding of two horses going in widely diverging directions, which is now his unhappy lot of having to say, "I am fortunately not responsible for the Liberals." I share his views on t hat but I hope that the electors of Truro note that too.
Everyone who has spoken, from both sides of the House, welcomes Mr. Gorbachev's initiative. It is significant that the words of praise for Mr. Gorbachev's initiative, which was described as an act of statesmanship, were not used when President Reagan made precisely the same proposal in 1981. It was then condemned by Opposition Members as a public relations exercise. Now that it comes from Mr. Gorbachev it is a marvellous new initiative. However, I shall cavil not at that.
As my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained, we need to be extremely careful about the problems of verification. We have to take extreme care on the problems of the shorter-range and aircraft missile systems. We have to take account of the imbalance in conventional forces, whatever the arithmetical arguments of those differences are, and we have to take account of the differences in chemical weapons. I have to say to the hon. Member for Woolwich—I am glad that he has now rejoined the debate—that to say that there has been no significant change in the position on chemical weapons since 1979 is to show a serious misunderstanding of the massive development in capability that the Soviet Union has manifested in the past seven or eight years. Nevertheless, the welcome is there and, subject to all those caveats, which any responsible leader of any Western Government must take into account—certainly my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take them into account and I am confident that the American Government will take them into account—we must welcome the initiative and go forward.
The significant development is that the Gorbachev offer is no longer subject to the caveat about SDI. It was particularly significant that the offer came when it did. I shall quote The Sunday Times, not in terms of a particular


attack on the newspaper, but because I take The Sunday Times editorial of 1 March as a typical example of a standard conventional view of the international negotiating relationship on nuclear weapons as it then obtained. It was unfortunate for the leader writer of The Sunday Times that the Gorbachev offer came just a few hours before his editorial was printed. Speaking of the Prime Minister's forthcoming visit to Moscow, he offered the view that
she may be the one person who can persuade President Reagan to make the necessary compromise on star war testing, which is the one issue that stands in the way of the first-ever missile-cutting deal between the superpowers.
Clearly, The Sunday Times was wrong. The conventional views of what I would call the arms control establishment in London were wrong. That is not an objective and, therefore, we need to look again carefully at the relationship in terms of future arms control negotiations and the strategic defence initiative. I believe that the nation, the House and, indeed, my party too should step back and look again carefully.
The strategic defence initiative has been subjected to a linguistic propaganda war which is akin to what was suffered by the term "cold war" over a generation. The term "cold war" was picked up by the international Left so that anyone who pointed out any dangers or threats that came from the Soviet Union or Soviet policy was condemned as a cold war warrior. There is an unhappy correlation now between the glib phrase "star wars" and the strategic defence initiative. Of course, it is a defence initiative. It may or may not work but it is, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Brent, East, a nonoffensive defence policy. It is a step back from what he described as a position of threatened mutual suicide.
One of the reasons why it became such an object of controversy was that it upset the Western arms control establishment. I speak as someone who was a co-founder of the Council for Arms Control and I am totally dedicated to arms control. However, I know also that there are people who have made a profession out of arms control—I make no complaint about that—but they are flat earthers. They are deeply unhappy about the concept that there is any possible alternative to what the right hon. Member for Brent, East suggested, mutually assured destruction, the all too sadly apposite acronym, MAD. MAD is precisely what President Reagan is seeking to get away from.
Another reason why SDI was such a fiercely attacked target was that it was linked with the general animosity which has been built up in so many quarters in the West against President Reagan. Of course, the concepts involved in SDI are 20 years and more old. For 20 years in the East and West there has been research and work on anti-satellite systems. The fact that in March 1983 it was gathered together by President Reagan and relaunched under the new umbrella of the strategic defence initiative was practically irrelevant. It was given a new thrust, but it was not anything new. It is research that the East and West have been in engaged in for two decades, in my view, quite rightly, too.
If there is a sensible and valid alternative to MAD, surely it must be right at least to explore the possibility. The arms control establishment, being, as I have said, inclined to flat earthism and conservatism, with an

extremely small "c" said "No. This is destabilising. They will never do it. It will take too much money and it is technically impossible." I remind the House that just a few months before the atom bomb was dropped, well-known experts on the subject said that no atom bomb would ever be dropped, and a few months before a landing was made on the moon, well-known experts on the subject said that no landing would ever be made on the moon.
I do not know whether SDI will succeed. However, the arms control circles, which have strong influences on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence, have now been surprised by the technical progress that has been made. I do not believe that the Soviet Union has been surprised because it is engaged in the technology. The Soviets know the American capability and they believe that something can be achieved. That is the reason why they are so sensitive about it. But the next defence of the arms control establishment is that that cannot be an all-embracing, 100 per cent. technology. In fact, sadly, in March 1985 my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was moved to compare it to a Maginot line mentality. It would be dangerous if that were the concept, but it is not. Among serious strategic thinkers in the United States the concept is developing of a combined defence of defence on the one hand and offence on the other. The technical possibilities are opening up.
Therefore, I urge my right hon. Friends in the Government to ensure that they take an extremely openminded, not to say positive, view of the possibilities that SDI may offer—not just for the West, but for the Soviet Union. That must be regarded as a serious possibility.
In line with that, I urge my right hon. Friends to take a careful look at their attitudes on the anti-ballistic missile treaty. I have been disturbed by some of the nervousness that they have displayed about the reading of that treaty. The treaty is the jewel in the crown of the arms control process. My right hon. Friends must understand that when they receive submissions from their Departments-from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence— they are talking about the Holy Grail, about the only coconut that has dropped off the tree so far—

Mr. Foulkes: Stop mixing your metaphors. Get on with it.

Mr. Whitney: I will mix my metaphors. If the hon. Gentleman will listen, he will learn something.
The ABM treaty was signed by the Soviet Union only when it was clear that, were it not signed, President Nixon was ready to deploy anti-ballistic missiles himself. That is what brought the Soviet Union to sign that treaty in 1972.
On the interpretation of the treaty, there is now a great debate on whether there should be a narrow or broad definition. As we are not signatories of the treaty, we do not have a locus to take a definitive view. However, I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to look at article 13 of that treaty, which establishes a consultative committee between the contracting parties and which meets twice a year. As I understand it, there has never been a single report of a Soviet complaint about the American interpretation of the treaty.
Therefore, the interpretation of the ABM treaty is linked to the attitude on SDI. With the Gorbachev initiative of a week last Saturday, those two areas give a new impetus, and we must look to that in a positive spirit.
I remind the House that the approach that we seek is not, in its own right, to sign a treaty for arms control. That is a laudable objective. What we really seek are sensible and sound relations between East and West. That must be the final objective, and that is where we start. Therefore, in any rush or enthusiasm, which is understandable, to sign a piece of paper that is labelled "arms control", let us not lose sight of that final objective. As Moscow knows well, the desire for peace in Britain and in the West as a whole is absolute. It has only to respond and then we can make progress.

Viscount Cranborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the debate, which is already running late. The House is well accustomed to the intemperance with which it is often addressed by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), but even by his own standards and lack of control over his tongue, is it parliamentary that he should refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman)—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Do not repeat it.

Viscount Cranborne: —in the way that he did while intervening in the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am not sure that I heard the remark to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The hon. Lady is not complaining.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I am not complaining because I do not regard the hon. Member as a gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If something discourteous was said, the Chair did not hear it.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I hope that I shall be forgiven for intruding on those private exchanges.
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), whose sitting down has been greeted with some enthusiasm in some quarters, took us away from the main subject of the debate into the issue of the strategic defence initiative. Of course, the debate is not about SDI, because Mr. Gorbachev has accepted at last that he will not link intermediate nuclear forces with SDI. That is the opportunity that has arisen and it is the basis for the debate. As the hon. Gentleman referred to that matter, let me say that I do not share his view. He said that it may or may not work. If it does not work, far from being a defensive, non-provocative nuclear system, it is in fact one of the most offensive systems that could be created. If it could work on the basis of President Reagan's initial dream, as the total defence, the impenetrable shield, it would be non-provocative defence, but I have yet to find anybody in the United States who any longer believes that that is within the capacity of the technology—

Mr. Whitney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No. The hon. Gentleman has just spoken. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary does not share the hon. Gentleman's belief, because the most thorough analysis that I have seen of the SDI concept to which, to be fair, the hon. Gentleman referred is that made by the Foreign Secretary some time ago, which has 18 points of specific criticism of the SDI concept. I wish that the Government would refer to it more often.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) made it clear that, whatever changes have taken place in the arms control scene since 1979, none has invalidated the case for acceptance of the zero-zero deal which we sought then. By "we", I mean hon. Members in all parts of the House. Not many have questioned that during this extremely valuable debate. The general tenor of the debate has been strongly to encourage the Government to go ahead and seek a deal now that the obstacle of linkage with the SDI programme has been removed.
We heard several helpful speeches during the debate. The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) made a sensible speech. Comment has been made on both sides of the House about the speech by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), who would not want to give up NATO weapons without obtaining greater security for Europe in the process by getting something in exchange. He made that clear in a speech that found acceptance in many quarters, if not entirely on his own Benches.
I appreciate the speech by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who lives and works so close to the problems presented by cruise deployment and whose constituents have had to put up not just with cruise deployment but with some of its domestic consequences. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) spoke from a committed unilateralist position, which I do not share, but he entered into the spirit of the debate, which was to encourage the Government to move forward.
The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) came closest in the debate to pouring cold water on the prospects for the INF discussions, but even he agreed, for example, that a stage had come when not only would the I NF negotiations proceed but when we would put Trident into international arms negotiations. He finds himself in a similar position to that adopted by the alliance in being prepared to maintain a British nuclear capacity at its present level but with the intention of negotiating it away. There was an unhappy reference in the hon. Member for Wealden's phraseology to the "mistake" of Reykjavik, by which he was referring in particular to the zero option.
The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend), who represents that part of Bexley that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) does riot represent, spoke about attaining the high ground. That note must enter the discussions. The hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer) preferred to attack my right hon. and hon. Friends as out-and-out unilateralists. He has clearly not made the kind of detailed study of Liberal party conference resolutions which forms the unhappy lot of anyone who is the chairman of the policy committee in any political party. If he looks a little more closely, he will find amongst our recent conference resolutions that there are resolutions which freeze our existing cruise deployment, and resolutions which fully underscore our longstanding and unshaken commitment to maintain American nuclear bases on British soil as part of our commitment to the NATO deterrent. If the hon. Gentleman finds these things fascinating, he should devote more time to their study.
The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) rather worried me. He still wants cruise deployment in the Netherlands when we are open to the


prospect of removing those weapons entirely from Europe. He is Ruislip's answer to Richard Perle, yet even Richard Perle is ready to seek a move forward on INF negotiations.

Mr. Wilkinson: If we gratuitously forgo deployment in the Netherlands, as many in the peace movement would wish in that country, it may subsequently prove a precedent which will be difficult for NATO if NATO at a later date seeks to enhance its short-range capability. That was the implication of my point, and that is a serious matter.

Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman has refined his point. It is not for us to decide whether the Dutch Government can or will accept deployment within the Netherlands. However, it can now be rendered unnecessary by success in the negotiations.
The discussions at Reykjavik caught the public imagination in the East and the West, and notably in the West where there is so much more opportunity for public feeling to be assessed and estimated. There is no doubt at all that that process caught the public imagination and that there was a great deal of public disappointment that the process seemed to come to a sudden end. Getting the Reykjavik process moving again, in the form of Mr. Gorbachev's new willingness to unlink the INF discussions, will again capture the imagination of the Western public and create expectations that the Government must make a major effort to satisfy.
Therefore, in the early stages of the debate we looked for some sign of where the British Government stand. The Secretary of State for Defence has apologised to me for having to return to his discussions in France. Perhaps he is trying to get the French out of their Maginot line complex.

Mr. Paul Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: I intend to develop my argument. I gave way a moment ago; I will not give way now.
I hope that the Secretary of State will continue the process in which my hon. Friends and I engaged in trying to discuss with France the way in which their military capacity can be seen as part of a European defence and not as a solely French operation conceived on such narrow principles that it cannot provide a genuine defence for France—

Mr. Jim Spicer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Beith: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he flatly refused to give way to me.
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State expressed surprise that there was no motion upon which the House could vote. He would not have been here for the vote in any case. However, the Order Papers are littered with motions that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tabled about the details of these matters. Is anyone seriously suggesting that we need a vote tonight so that some right hon. and hon. Members can go through the Division Lobby to oppose a deal on intermediate nuclear forces? This is one of the occasions when the House can surely express by common consent the need to see progress in this area.
The Secretary of State did not clarify whether there was a link in the Government's mind between intermediate and

short-range nuclear forces. Instead, he devoted quite a lot of time to a partisan chronicling of events of the past few years. He tended to ignore those factors that led my right hon. and hon. Friends and Ito criticise the absence of the dual key in cruise deployment and the fact that deployment took place while discussions in Geneva were still taking place. That was a matter of wide public concern at the time. Such feelings were strengthened by widespread British feelings that cruise was not sufficiently or at all under British control.
We wanted some sign from the Secretary of State during today's debate that there was no formal linkage between his legitimate concerns about short-range nuclear weapons and the prospects of an INF deal. Some of the phrases that the right hon. Gentleman used such as, "This is an essential condition of an INF agreement"—when talking about short-range nuclear forces— did not remove the doubt that the Government are trying to impose a linkage where neither the Americans nor the Soviet Union wish to impose any linkage at all upon these discussions.
The Secretary of State prayed in aid the draft treaty tabled by the United States at Geneva. However, the effect of the treaty is to freeze existing Soviet superiority in shortrange nuclear forces. That is clearly an attempt to table and recognise the relevance of short-range nuclear forces for further progress and to the spirit in which an INF deal is struck. However, the treaty tabled by the United States does not remove that superiority. That is clearly a matter that we must consider after concluding an INF deal.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), in a characteristically entertaining and interesting speech, raised the important question of what is happening now in the Soviet Union. That is part of the background to these discussions. What is happening there and how should we respond to it?
Clearly fundamental changes are taking place in the Soviet Union giving rise to major pressures. We are in no position to rest at this moment on a judgment that the changes will continue in their present direction. That can only be a hope. Of course, the experience in China is a demonstration of how these things can go wrong and how there there can be major reversals. However, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, the Lord President of the Council, myself and others visited Moscow last summer, observed the beginnings of some of these changes and pressed on issues such as human rights for different attitudes from those which have been characteristic of the Soviet Union in recent years.
It was apparent to all of us—and this would not be a subject of disagreement between the different parties in that delegation— that the economic situation was a major driving force, along with the desire for greater stability, in Mr. Gorbachev's attitude to disarmament. That was underlined by my perception that it was not cruise or Pershing that concerned Mr. Gorbachev most; nor was it French and British nuclear forces that most concerned him. Indeed, he made increasingly clear his readiness to put that issue to one side. The strategic defence initiative and the major commitment that would be involved in continuing the existing Soviet work in that area to match that initiative was Mr. Gorbachev's main concern. Removing the SDI linkage was an important decision for Mr. Gorbachev to make. I believe that that decision was dictated by his belief that the process must be got rolling and that some agreement must be secured


somewhere. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bexleyheath was right when he said that the Soviet leader must start to show results if he is to remain secure in his own political system.
In the course of our discussions in Moscow, I felt that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East appeared rather like an early and very genial Father Christmas, upending his sack on the Kremlin table so that everything tumbled out before Mr. Gorbachev could even get his note up the chimney. Almost anything that Mr. Gorbachev could have asked for was already on offer because the Labour party had already committed itself to having no NATO nuclear bases in the United Kingdom, no cruise deployment and no British nuclear forces.
There was no incentive to do more than produce decorative offers of re-targeting Soviet missiles and nominal reductions in their strength. I do not believe that that was a sensible strategy. Nor do I believe that Gorbachev was educated in the Santa Claus school of negotiation. He will drive a hard bargain or a hard series of bargains. He is prepared to drive bargains and he needs those bargains. It is in the interests of the West and of world peace to secure bargains which will enhance our security. We cannot do that in one single deal, as Gorbachev discovered when he went to Reykjavik.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who is to reply to the debate, referring to shortrange nuclear forces in 1985, said:
Such systems are not at present the subject of arms control negotiations. Priority is rightly being given by the United States and Soviet Union to reaching agreements on the strategic and long-range intermediate categories."— [Official Report,20 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 209.]
The Minister stressed the distinctive nature of the various negotiations. We now have the opportunity to make progress on intermediate nuclear forces.
When the Prime Minister goes to Moscow, there are many issues that she can rightly raise. She can talk about short-range missiles and Soviet conventional forces. She can talk about human rights issues. All of those are important to the West and to the West's perception of Soviet intentions and to the West's assessment of Soviet good faith. But she must not stand in the way of a deal on intermediate nuclear forces by making it dependent on linkage with any or all of those issues.
We were prepared to bring this matter before the House. It would not otherwise have been debated before the Prime Minister's visit to the Soviet Union. It is entirely in line with our belief that we should maintain sound defence while actively promoting disarmament that we ask the Government to take what will be, in the view of millions of people, a small but very significant step forward for mankind if they enable the nations of the world to achieve the first major nuclear arms deal—that on intermediate nuclear forces. It is an opportunity that the Government must not throw away.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tim Renton): I agree with the last words of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). This is an important debate, and I am grateful to the alliance for arranging it, although they may come to regret it because of the inconsistencies that it has shown in their position. It is important because it concerns the first substantial reductions in modern weapons. The debate contained thoughtful speeches from my hon. Friends the

Members for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw), for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) arid for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), among others, and from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang).
The one thing that the debate lacked was the sound of Opposition or alliance leaders eating their words. That would have been appropriate. I know that humble pie is not the favourite diet of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who prefers an extravagance of loose verbiage, but it would have been good if, on this occasion, he had echoed the words of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and accepted that his constant opposition to the deployment of cruise in Britain had been wrong.
The right hon. Gentleman said, "It was our determination to deploy cruise and Pershing that brought the Soviets back to the negotiating table." How right he was, yet we heard not a word of that from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, who once again resorted to using ridiculous phrases such as the one about the Prime Minister reviving the psychosis of the cold war— [Interruption.] We heard good grunting noises from the right hon. Gentleman, but he would do well to remember the article that he wrote in The Observer of 13 February 1983. It was entitled "The Case against Cruise" and it contained gems such as the following:
If Cruise is once deployed it will make an arms agreement enormously more difficult. It is certain that if the West deploys Cruise and Pershing the Russians will reciprocate. The balance of power will then become much less stable than it is today. For all these reasons, NATO must now abandon its decision of December 1979. The Labour Party is determined that Britain shall not accept Cruise missiles on her soil.
Instead, today the right hon. Gentleman was like one of the ugly sisters suddenly deciding that Cinderella was her best friend after all. He is trying to jump on the bandwagon—

Mr. Healey: rose—

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has had his chance. I will give way in a second. His hypocrisy in the way in which he talked about INF and the possibility of a zero-zero option will remain with him for many years.

Mr. Healey: I am glad that the Minister has given 'way. Every quotation that he made has been justified in the event. The Soviets did reciprocate the deployment of cruise and Pershing by putting missiles in East Germany and Czechoslovakia. Four years passed before we could resume arms negotiations. The position has become less favourable than it was, as the Prime Minister said last week. Every statement that it made has been proved right in the event.

Mr. Renton: I regret that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am reminded of the old phrase, "Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan." That is what we have heard today, and the same is true of the alliance spokesmen. It would be wrong to leave them out of the calculations altogether.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) tried to make it clear that it was logical and consistent for the alliance to have backed the dual track decision but to have voted against the deployment of cruise. That is precisely what they did. He said, "'That is an absolutely clear position." To me, it is as clear as mud. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made abundantly


clear, because of the deployment of cruise and because of the courage and steadfastness of the NATO Alliance in deploying cruise and Pershing, we reached the position that we are in today. Without that, we would not have been here.

Mr. Foulkes: It is facile.

Mr. Renton: No, it is not facile. The question is how many SS20 systems would have remained facing Europe if we had followed Labour or alliance policies. Would it have been 900, 600 or 300? One can choose any number one likes except zero. Only with the deployment of cruise, contrary to the policies of the Liberal party, the alliance and the Labour party, have we reached the position—

Dr. David Owen: The Minister knows full well that the policies of the alliance have been consistent throughout— [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) can keep his policies, but the SDP line has been consistent, as has been the alliance line. The leader of the Liberal party went to his conference and had enough courage to challenge the delegates and reject their policy. The fact is that he did not accept the Liberal assembly decision. It is about time that it was accepted that there is some honour in this House. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has consistently held the view that we should support the dual track decision. The policy of the alliance, as distinct from the policy of the Liberal party— [Interruption.]—has never shifted. It is the strength of the alliance that both parties have to agree to a policy before it becomes alliance policy. It is wrong to claim that that is not so.

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman has managed to bury the alliance defence policy once and for all. He has certainly buried any idea that there is unanimity or consistency in it. He said that the alliance had always supported the dual track position, yet in the House the alliance voted against the deployment of cruise. He did that, as did the leader of the Liberal party, and it is an intrinsic part of the dual track decision. Only that decision has brought us to the stage that we have reached today.
To get back to the main gist of the debate, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East suggested that the Government had been half-hearted in welcoming Mr. Gorbachev's suggestion. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary emphatically welcomed the Soviet statement for three clear reasons. First, it accepted the idea of an INF agreement based on the zero option that the NATO Alliance first put forward in 1981. Secondly, the Soviet leadership has broken the link between an INF agreement and SDI which we and our NATO allies have repeatedly urged the Soviet Union to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) pointed out the importance of this. Thirdly, the Soviet statement made no reference to the British and French independent nuclear deterrent, a third good reason for supporting the statement, thus confirming our long insistence on the exclusion of the British and French deterrents from any INF negotiations.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East will remember that in the SDI debate in February 1986 he said:
The major obstacle to accepting the Soviet proposals for the zero option of intermediate nuclear forces is the British

Government's determination to go ahead with the Trident programme."— [Official Report,19 February 1986; Vol. 92, c. 33.]
However, last October Mr. Gorbachev said of the British and French independent deterrent forces, "Let them be increased and further improved." I ask the House and the right hon. Gentleman whose advice I should take, his or the general secretary's? Certainly, the general secretary's advice is a great deal more helpful and useful for the defence of this country than that of the right hon. Gentleman.
Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome of the negotiations. Those involved in arms control matters have by nature to be cautious and, as many of my hon. Friends have said in the debate, the going will not be easy. However, the events of the past week or so give one reason to think that real progress may be possible. The ground has already been covered in some detail in exchanges between the two parties, most notably during the Reykjavik meeting last October, and the Americans moved with promptness in tabling a draft treaty.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East, the hon. Members for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and some of my hon. Friends asked about the position of SRINF in the current treaty negotiations. Part of the West's negotiating position since 1981 has been that an LRINF deal must contain constraints on SRINF. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said earlier, the draft treaty contains articles constraining those shorter range weapons which might be used to bypass an LRINF agreement. NATO will require follow-on negotiations to address the Soviet imbalance in these and other shorter range systems.
At present we do not know precisely what the Soviet Union is prepared to offer on SRINF. The Soviets must address the imbalance, explain why they need these systems which have no direct equivalent on the NATO side, and say why they continue to deny the United States the right to match. Similarly, the question of conventional weapons was raised frequently in the debate. The Prime Minister agreed with President Reagan at Camp David that steps to eliminate conventional disparities would become more important as nuclear weapons were reduced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, in his thoughtful speech, and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth asked about on-site verification as well as the use of national technical means such as satellites and said that this will have to be looked at very carefully in arriving at a final treaty. I agree with those hon. Members, including, I think, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, who said that the verification arrangements made in this treaty could be a useful precedent. One will look to see how they are worked out and if they could be built on in other fora.
I realise how important this issue is to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury because Greenham common is in his constituency and he has often spoken wisely on the subject in the House. He asked what had happened to make the Soviets change their minds. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I suggest several possibilities such as economic questions in the Soviet Union; a wish among the Soviets not to invest huge sums of money in new defence technologies; a wish on the part of the new leadership to show members of its bureaucracy


and the party that it is making progress in these negotiations: and, above all, the resolution of NATO itself.
Over the years the Soviet Union has been shown that cruise and Pershing missiles were being deployed in Western Europe and that the only way to remove them was for the Soviets to remove the SS20s. That must be regarded as a great success for the steadfastness of NATO.
We should not be carried away too much by thoughts about a transformation in Soviet society. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). It is easy to be excited when we read in the newspapers about all that has happened. However, only in the last two weeks we have had two instances of the Soviets refusing entry visas to an all-party group of Members of Parliament and, at the end of last week, a group of parliamentary wives who wanted to go to the Soviet Union for tourism and to meet friends, including a number of Soviet Jews who have been denied exit visas for 10 or 15 years. It is inconceivable that in the Soviet Union, which is moving towards more openness and towards restructuring, such retrogressive steps should still be taken because they appear to be clearly contrary to the obligations that the Soviets entered into under the Helsinki final act.
Where does this leave us? Over the last few years the opposition parties would have had us scuttling off to Moscow at every new twist in the Soviet strategy for wearing down the West. The negotiating brief of the Opposition parties, and especially that of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, would have been a deal at any price— cruise, Pershing, Trident, everything must go. Instead of that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will visit Moscow later this month and in her agenda will be discussions with the Soviet leader on genuine arms control. Those discussions will be on the basis of real and balanced cuts in nuclear arsenals which will not leave us defenceless in the face of a Soviet threat.
Recent developments have proved for all to see that we were right to go ahead with cruise deployment and right to resist the numerous offers for freezes or partial reductions which Moscow presented in the years before deployment and which Labour and Liberal parties found so attractive. They also prove that we were right to refuse to allow the British nuclear deterrent to be included in INF negotiations, and right to hold out for the genuine and balanced arms control agreements that we may now be in sight of achieving. The whole country will remember that at the next election.

Question put and negatived.

Regional Employment Opportunities

Mr. Geraint Howells: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the increasing disparity of opportunities among and within the constituent nations and regions of the United Kingdom, characterised by high unemployment rates, low job vacancy figures, and poor infrastructure and housing in the deprived areas, in contrast with lower unemployment, skill shortages, and congestion as well as high housing and living costs in the more advantaged areas; and calls for a strong regional policy spearheaded by regional development agencies aimed at making the United Kingdom a multi-centred society where every nation, region and travel-to-work area has an equal opportunity to invest in its own enterprise and provide training and job opportunities for its people.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Howells: Under this Government, Britain is fast becoming a bitter and divided nation. Far from creating one nation, under their present leadership the Tories have achieved small islands of affluence in a huge sea of disadvantage. Never have the haves and have nots been more widely spread and never has one part of Britain— the south-east—been so much the major recipient of the limited benefit of a monetarist policy, while other regions suffer unemployment, scarcity of resources and a declining economy.
The economies of Britain's regions have undergone more change in the last 10 years than in the whole of the last 30. In some communities, the painful change caused by the decline in the traditional manufacturing industries— some 30 per cent. of the manufacturing jobs have been lost since 1979—has been offset by new jobs in the service sector, but for a great many others, that has not been the case.
A third of all travel-to-work areas are now experiencing unemployment rates of 15 per cent. or more. A recent EEC survey showed that nine of the 15 cities in the Community with the lowest income, highest unemployment and greatest isolation in terms of business and tourist contacts were in Britain. Palermo in Sicily is now far better off than Liverpool, Manchester or Sunderland.
By contrast with other European countries, power in the British economy has been increasingly concentrated in London. France and Germany have a number of centres which can compete with their capitals, but in Britain only Edinburgh has avoided satellite status. Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Bristol used to be major independent centres, with their own economic power and cultural influence. The recent southern increase in inequality precipitated by the Government follows a longer, slower misguided pressure to centralise—most notably in transport policy.
The Government have refused to face up to the scale of the regional disparity in rates of growth and economic prospects. Once the differences between the communities exist, it becomes very difficult to reverse them. Local employment and output decline and it becomes less attractive to start new businesses. Workers have less opportunity or incentive to develop skills and qualifications. Young people emigrate, and potential new employers face problems recruiting qualified manpower.
The local housing market follows employment into decline. The disparity in house prices creates its own problems. The average price for a pre-war semi-detached house in 1986 in was £75,000 in the south-east, compared with £29,000 in the north. Average house prices have increased by over 50 per cent. since 1983 in the south-east, compared with 26 per cent. in the north-west and 27 per cent. in Wales.
That difference prevents population mobility, because even home owners cannot afford to move to the southeast. But it also creates congestion in London and the south-east, because people are unwilling to take jobs elsewhere for fear of jeopardising their investment. High prices in the south-east also create homelessness in the region.
Turning to unemployment—

Mr. Tony Favell: Indeed, higher house prices in the south-east may deter people from the the north and perhaps from Wales from moving to London, but what is wrong with moving jobs to Wales and the north-west, moving to that part of the world the sort of people who would create jobs—for example, the Civil Service? Surely the lower house prices there should attract people into the areas rather than lead to their leaving.

Mr. Howells: There is no point in trying to attract people from the south-east to Wales, Scotland or the north if they cannot find work. There is no work in those areas, as the figures that I will give later will show.
Other changes in the economy are likely to reinforce regional decline. Increases in service industry employment and a continuing shift to the south-east combine with an estimated further decline in manufacturing industry. Warwick university forecasts that 500,000 more jobs will be lost by 1990.
The problem of regional disparity is often seen as one of the north versus the south, but in reality that is extremely misleading, since many of the worst problems are located in the south-west, which has lower per capita GDP than some areas in the north. Even in the prosperous south-east there are some black spots, notably in Greater London—such as Newham, Lambeth and Bermondsey.
A glance at the unemployment rates in the 10 worst hit travel-to-work areas reveals that the worst is Newquay in Cornwall, with 27·8 per cent., and the eighth is Penzance and St. Ives, with 23·7 per cent. The best areas, and still rising, are Winchester and Eastleigh, with 5 per cent.; Cleethorpes, 5 per cent.; Clitheroe, 5 per cent.; Aylesbury and Wycombe, 5·9 per cent.; Cambridge, 6 per cent.; Tunbridge Wells, 6 per cent.; Slough, 6·5 per cent.; and Newbury, 6·6 per cent. But on the other side of the table, as I said, the worst of the lot and still rising is Newquay in Cornwall with 27·8 per cent. Cumnock and Sanquhar, in Scotland, has 26·9 per cent. Cardigan— in my constituency— has 26·1 per cent. South Tyneside has 25·7 per cent.; Skye and Western Ross, 25·3 per cent.; Skegness, 25 per cent.; Lampeter and Aberaeron—also in my constituency—24·8 per cent.; Penzance and St. Ives, 23·7 per cent.
There are also disparities within regions. For example, the south-west saw an increase in unemployment of only 2 per cent. between June 1979 and June 1986, but that concealed a total economic collapse in some areas within

the region. The situation in Newquay may be contrasted with that in Exeter, where unemployment is under 9 per cent.
May I mention Cornwall, two days before the by-election? The main problem with regional development in Cornwall is that assisted area status was removed from Truro and St. Austell in 1984. That presents difficulities when trying to attract business to the region. Why go to Truro when Camborne down the road has assisted area status? The largest employer in Truro— Furniss, which makes biscuits— is in the process of leaving the city because it is not an assisted area.
The alliance would create a regional development agency based in the area to combat this problem.

Mr. William Cash: May I refer the hon. Gentleman to the most recent research notes on unemployment rates by constituency, a copy of which is in the Library? That shows that the unemployment rate in Truro is 14·1 per cent, which seems somewhat adrift from the figure that he gave for Newquay.

Mr. Howells: There are a few miles between Truro and Newquay, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
Cornwall has a housing problem because it has the highest new dwelling prices in the country outside London and the south-east. House prices have been forced up by the second dwelling and holiday home market. The alliance wants to establish regional development agencies on the Scottish and Welsh models to help relieve the problems of the English regions. It is well known that many Conservative Members opposed the establishment of the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
My constituency is in mid-Wales, and I recognise that the Development Board for Rural Wales has done excellent work to stem depopulation. The WDA is also doing excellent work in north and south Wales. I hope that the Government, in their wisdom, if they decide to use it, create similar agencies for the various parts of England.
We believe that people in the regions are best placed to understand and solve their problems.

Mr. Favell: Is the hon. Gentleman proposing the establishment of a regional development agency for every English region outside the south-east? If not, which regions would be excluded?

Mr. Howells: I want the Government to accept the principle, just as we do. After consultations with local authorities, we might decide to have agencies for the north-east, the north-west, central England, the south-east and the south-west. There is nothing wrong with such a proposal.
The agencies' role would be to attract companies from outside Britain, but their main objective would be to enable new industries to develop and existing ones to diversify. They would help indigenous industries and local enterprise rather than footloose large companies.
Whitehall-directed regional policy has clearly failed. It has also been costly. Each manufacturing job has cost £40,000 to create and sustain. The alliance work search project has demonstrated the low cost of creating jobs through local enterprise boards and agencies such as Lancashire Enterprise Ltd. which creates and sustains jobs


for just £2,400 each. These local agencies would work in partnership with regional development agencies and help Britain to become a multi-centred society with prosperous regions again.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the Liberal or Social Democratic party policy for a decentralised incomes policy? Does it set pay rates according to local conditions and does the local labour market affect the public sector as well as the private sector?

Mr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman is straying a little and getting worried about the effect that our policies would have on the nation. I am sure that the people will decide when the general election is called.
We also want a programme of investment in human resources among school leavers and young adults to raise skills and training. Universities and polytechnics should develop major new roles in the education and training of young adults so that we can compete with other countries in Europe which place skill training at a higher premium than this misguided Government.
The Employment Institute's report of last week says that unemployment in the north has increased from 10·4 per cent. to 18·9 per cent. during the 1980s. It insists that the Government should increase regional development grants to improve productive capacity. It also calls for more inter-agency co-ordination between Europe, the Government and development agencies.
The report joins the chorus of bodies which are demanding regional development agencies for depressed areas. It says:
They should have wide-ranging powers to stimulate investment and employment along the lines of those already existing in Scotland and Wales.
The allocation of funds between regions would have to be carefully controlled in order to provide the greatest stimulus to those regions with the most severe problems.
Turning to farming, the sudden introduction of milk quotas in 1984 demolished confidence among farmers overnight. Confidence is now at a low ebb. Farmers have lost faith in the Tories and will not forgive them for their uncaring attitude during the past year.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the policy of two-tier pricing, which is said to be that of the Liberal party, will be advantageous to British farmers, bearing in mind the fact that farms in Europe are infinitely smaller?

Mr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Lady has read the farming press during the past few weeks. It is very gratifying that leading agriculturists now suggest that the National Farmers Union, other organisations and the Minister should consider the possibility of a two-tier system. If the hon. Lady has a better alternative, I am quite willing to listen.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman must know that the system would apply throughout Europe and that a small farm in Britain is considered relatively large in Europe, so we would catch the worst cold and the rest of Europe would benefit.

Mr. Howells: With respect, I am afraid that the hon. Lady has got it wrong again. Bearing in mind her background, I am sure that she agrees that the local farmer is important to the community. It is our duty and that of

the Government to look after small and intermediate farmers, not just the cereal barons. That is the only way to ensure that small farmers survive into the 1990s.
We should consider having a Minister of State for Agriculture for Scotland and for Wales. Both countries have been neglected over the years. The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales have not been to Brussels for many years. They are duty-bound to go.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): On occasion, especially on fisheries matters, I accompany the Ministers responsible for these matters to Brussels, and when important agriculture issues are dealt with in Brussels, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State accompanies the Minister.

Mr. Howells: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention. I am sure that he is aware that the Secretary of State for Wales has not been there once during the past six years. I take the Minister at his word, but there are many Scottish farmers who are interested in beef and sheep farming—as well as fishing.

Mr. Keith Best: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is concerned about farmers in Wales. From his profound interest in and knowledge of these matters, he will know that Wales is three times self-sufficient in sheep, beef and dairy products. It is often argued on behalf of British farmers that we should not take cuts because the United Kingdom as a whole is not self-sufficient whereas other countries are more than self-sufficient. How does the hon. Gentleman think agriculture in Wales would fare if he had his way and we had a separate Minister arguing for Wales?

Mr. Howells: It would do a power of good for farmers in Wales. We need somebody to represent us in Brussels. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that many farmers have criticised the Secretary of State for Wales for not going to Brussels and speaking and standing up on behalf of the farmers of Wales. The Government should persuade our friends in Europe to have a beef scheme similar to our sheepmeat regime.
I turn now to the cheap credit facilities that now prevail in Europe. There is a great deal of unfair competition in the Community because farmers in France and Germany get cheap credit rates. We should introduce an optional scheme for our farmers. At present, there are capital grant schemes for farmers here whereas in France there is a cheap credit scheme. That should be made optional, and it would help many farmers who are in financial difficulties at the present time.
We must improve our marketing within the Community. I blame the many Europeans who are in charge of marketing our surpluses. Something is radically wrong with a system of storing butter in intervention for four years. I am delighted that at last the Community is moving to rid itself of surpluses.

Mr. Churchill: A moment ago, did not the hon. Gentleman complain about the cut back in milk subsidies, yet now he is saying how marvellous it is that the butter mountain is being dealt with?

Mr. Howells: I never mentioned milk surpluses. With respect, the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. I do not know what has come over Conservative Members tonight.
This is a short but important debate. Finally, I turn to decentralisation. It is the only way in which the regions of England will survive. The nations of Wales and Scotland want their own Government and regional assemblies in England to make sure that the voice of our peoples are heard at local level and not only at this central level, which has proved misguided. Unfortunately, the people of Wales and Scotland and of various regions in England have not been properly governed during the past few years.

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'notes that the United Kingdom has benefited from six years of uninterrupted growth; that over the last six months United Kingdom unemployment has fallen by 100,000; that employment has increased substantially since 1983; and that vacancies are at their highest level this decade; commends the efforts of the Government to develop a modern economy which is offering new types of opportunity; recognises in particular its work in launching the most extensive training programme in the country's history, and welcomes its commitment to the regions, underlined by carefully targeted investment and assistance; and further calls on the Government to continue with its present policy of seeking to spread throughout the country the economic conditions that bring prosperity and jobs.'.
When I considered the selection of this debate, I was reminded that there is nothing like the onset of a Budget or by-election to provoke the Opposition parties, including the alliance, into trying to make clear again their employment and regional policies, no doubt on this occasion with half an eye to Truro and half to the forthcoming Budget. Given the Opposition parties have redefined their regional and employment policies on several occasions, it is always interesting to see what version will be forthcoming from the spokesman of those parties.
The motion on the Order Paper seemed to have the especially endearing quality that sometimes comes from the alliance, especially the part that was carried away on the question of regional policy and decentralisation, on which the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) has commented. The motion ends with the words
calls for a strong regional policy spearheaded by regional development agencies aimed at making the United Kingdom a multi-centred society where every nation, region and travel-to-work area has an equal opportunity to invest in its own enterprise and provide training and job opportunities for its people.
I have never heard that degree of local autonomy in investment and employment policy advocated before. As there are 334 travel-to-work areas, what is being advocated is a degree of Government decentralisation which has not hit England since the time of the Norman conquest. It seems incredible that that has been put forward by the alliance now.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North did not touch in quite so much detail on the employment policies with which the alliance parties would tackle the problems that he described. I realise that he is holding some of his party's fire for tomorrow morning's press conference, at which his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and his colleagues will unveil an

alliance plan for jobs and poverty. I refer to the press release that will be put out tomorrow by the alliance, because it is only there that one can find exactly what they advocate to tackle the problems that the hon. Gentleman has just described. The press release states
The alliance package shows that unemployment can be reduced substantially without increasing inflation by means of a sustained incomes policy which reduces incomes growth by an average of one per cent. per year.
It proposes a prudent and targeted rise in public spending in line with growth in the economy. In the first year gross public spending would be increased by £4·9 billion and the PSBR by £2·1 billion.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have been let in to the secrets of the incomes policy, to which the alliance keep referring, because he was unable to answer a question about it fired at him from the Labour Benches.
So far as the second part of the alliance release is concerned, the increased public spending and increased PSBR are just the policies that led John Horam to leave the alliance recently because it has a mere pale shadow of the policies on public spending, taxation and borrowing that are so frequently put forward by the Labour party.
Opposition parties may try to redefine their policies, but there are some aspects of the motion upon which we can all agree. Nobody has ever denied that there is "disparity of opportunity" in different parts of the country. All parties share concern about what are regional differences or what are, as the hon. Gentleman has said, more localised differences in the levels of unemployment, investment and economic growth in this country. However, I do not agree that they are new or that they are increasing. There have been similar debates about regional disparities in the country at various times in this century, and similar things have been said. However, during this Government's period of office, the proportion of unemployment in the north as a proportion of the whole has fallen slightly and there has been a proportionate increase in total unemployment in the south.
However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that depressed towns and inner city areas are to be found across the country and that the analysis that is often put forward turns all that into a crude north-south divide and is thoroughly misleading. One can find pockets of prosperity and poverty all over the country. I have no doubt that the onset of the Truro by-election is causing everybody suddenly to discover that those problems are not entirely confined to the north of England, as a few had complained only a few weeks ago.
Given that these disparities exist, we must tackle them realistically and practically. My first proposition on the Government's behalf is to assert that now that the national economy is performing so much better, the total level of employment in the economy is steadily growing and the level of unemployment is declining, the Government are obviously creating the conditions within which it is easier to tackle the problems of disparity than it has been for a long time. When one considers how those problems might be tackled, I have to say to the Opposition parties, having heard a speech from a Liberal Member and looking forward to a speech from a Labour Member in a few moments, that I suspect that their approach to the problem, which is not new, is that they go back to the old regional policies of the past few decades.
My limited experience of politics has made me steadily ever more sceptical of the old type of broad-brush regional policy and the prospects of it ever producing the result that


we want. Years ago, in my reckless youth, I was the principal author of a Bow Group pamphlet entitled "New Hope for the Regions" in which I advocated regional government of the type that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North has propounded. However, all my experiences since then of the growing expense and difficulty of the various tiers of local government that we have had have completely converted me. I do not believe that any of the regions would benefit from expensive new tiers of government, interposed in the present difficult relationships between national and local government. If regional development agencies are really being advocated by the Liberal party for each and every part of the United Kingdom, that would be self-defeating, especially when it comes to attracting inward investment from overseas, when no doubt the regions would act in competition with each other for overseas visitors.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: In the book that my right hon. and learned Friend and I wrote together — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We were co-authors of it — we advocated beefing up small firms—now a successful policy under this Government.

Mr. Clarke: We authors remember all our accounts. I was referring to an earlier essay— [Laughter.] Neither my hon. Friend nor I advocated regional government in the pamphlet that we both produced on regional policy in Europe shortly before the general election. Surprisingly, there are a few unsold copies of it on the book stalls and I commend it to all hon. Members. We advocated a policy aimed at encouraging small businesses in particular and we rejected the broad-brush policies which have not worked in the past.
I agree with one feature in a booklet put out by Mr. Nicholas Bosanquet on behalf of the alliance and its work search theories. It is called, "Turning the Tide of Decline in the Regions" and was published in March 1987. Indeed, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North quoted it extensively without attribution, but he was quoting an ally. Mr. Bosanquet comes to the conclusion that regional aid on the old pattern has failed. That is where we should start from, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and I did, when criticising the regional policies of the Labour Government.
Since then new ideas on regional policy and local employment have come from the present Government. It will be a pity if our entire discussion about regional employment turns on the simple issue of the level of regional grants and where the map is drawn, giving various areas assisted area status. We had a touch of it in the hon. Gentleman's speech. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman touched on that in his comments about Truro and Camborne. Too often that point is made by north country Labour Members who reduce the whole matter to an argument about broad-brush grants which largely do not work.
I return to the position from which I started in the pamphlet to which I have referred. The policy to rectify local differences in employment opportunities must be based on the need to help people in the regions to make their towns and cities more attractive to investment and jobs of the type that emerge in a modern economy. The Government's policies have concentrated on helping people in the regions to help themselves. We believe that

that is best achieved by producing a partnership of effort between the public and private sectors, involving the Government, private industry, private developers and local government, where local government is prepared to participate. However, as we all know, the experience of the Government and the private sector is that in many inner-city areas Left-wing local authorities go more out of their way to drive away investment, work experience and training than to encourage them.
Hon. Members must appreciate that when that partnership gets under way the employment that we shall seek to attract will be different from that which many areas experienced in the past. The growth in employment will not be in the old, traditional industries with large factories producing traditional goods and owned by paternalistic employers. Obviously, we protect them where we can: the multi-fibre arrangement protects the textile industry, which is now becoming successful; and the Government stepped in to protect Rio Tinto-Zinc and its subsidiary in Cornwall to help the tin mines during a period when the market was unstable. We are looking for growth in new start-ups, small businesses that will expand and in service industries, as well as in manufacturing industries. We are also looking to encourage self-employment so that we can support people who work on their own. I am glad to say that that has happened to a considerable extent during the Government's period of office.
It is interesting to visit a town such as Sunderland. Most people there are aware that the flagship of redevelopment is to be found in Washington new town where Nissan has opened a large new car plant which it proposes to expand. What is often not appreciated by the local people is that, although the Nissan investment is welcome and has created many new jobs, twice as many new jobs have been created locally by the Government's enterprise allowance scheme, subsidising previously unemployed people who go into business on their own account. Self-employment has been expanding everywhere, but it has been expanding most rapidly in Yorkshire and Humberside which has experienced the greatest percentage increase in self-employment since 1979. Self-employment has increased there by no less than 78 per cent. That is only a whisker ahead of the south-west where the number of self-employed has increased hugely—by 77 per cent. between 1979 and now. Obviously, we must build on that and speed it up.
Some areas are still not sufficiently attractive to the new types of investment and employment that we need to draw in. Our answer, working on the local partnership principle that I described, is to continue to make them more attractive so that new investment and new jobs can be spread more evenly. Obviously, it is difficult. At present some areas are naturally more attractive than others. To use a rather fanciful illustration, at present it is easier to attract new investment and jobs to Bracknell than to Gateshead. The answer to that is not simply to complain about it; it is not unrealistic to see what can be done in Gateshead, not to make it identical to Bracknell—that is many years ahead—but to make it acquire more of the attractions that are drawing enterprise, investment arid jobs to Bracknell. It involves changing Gateshead so that it will receive more investment.

Mr. Geraint Howells: If the Minister believes that the Government policy for England at present is the best, has he any plans to abolish the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies?

Mr. Clarke: I did not say that. I was pointing out that the creation of English development agencies to cover practically the whole of England, which the hon. Gentleman proposed, would greatly diminish the value of the Welsh and Scottish Development Agencies to Wales and Scotland. It would produce a confusion of agencies, using public funds to compete with each other for investment and that would cause confusion to the people whom we are trying to attract from abroad.

Mr. Gordon Brown: If the problem is the absence of sufficient spending on the infrastructure and inadequate levels of investment in the north and other areas, what sense does it make to cut rate support grant and regional development grant? If the Minister will not support a development agency for the whole of England, which is certainly not Labour party policy, but wants to give local people the chance to help themselves, why has he resisted the demands from the north for a northern development agency?

Mr. Clarke: I did not say that the problem was a problem of infrastructure generally. The road map of England is bluest around Merseyside and the north-east where motorways abound, but in themselves they do not bring new investment to those areas. The idea that more public funds through rate support grant should support the high spending activities of Left-wing councils will not lead to the regeneration of their areas. We are tackling the physical problems that exist in many areas directly and more selectively, for example by creating urban development corporations. At present we have two—one in the docklands of London, which I recommend any hon. Member to visit as it is a spectacular example of the transformation of a derelict area into a thriving, prosperous centre of activity—

Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: No, I will not give way. The Liberal spokesman took 25 minutes moving his motion, which he was entitled to do. If both the hon. Gentleman and I take half an hour each, we shall move to the replies without any Back-Bench speeches.
I was commending the London Docklands Development Corporation. The South Liverpool Urban Development Corporation is equally successful. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has announced urban development corporations for Trafford Park, Teesside, the Black Country and Tyne and Wear. Their purpose is to speed up decision making, to attract private investment into derelict areas which with grant can be made usable, and to target infrastructure spending as is required. It is not true that broad-brush infrastructure spending everywhere necessarily attracts new jobs.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment also has the system of urban development grant, developed by this Government. A 75 per cent. grant goes to those local authorities that will work with private developers to secure investment in inner-city sites. Since 1983, 228 projects have been approved, at a cost of £106 million to the taxpayer. That money has levered £440 million of private investment in factories, shops, offices

and houses in inner-city areas. My right hon. Friend is now preparing his proposals for urban regeneration grant to take that further.
In those and other ways, we are tackling the physical problems of deprived areas. However, in many locations, the main problem is raising the skills, employability and motivation of people who live either in towns that are deprived because of declining traditional industry or in the inner-city areas of a thriving city, where the prosperity does not reflect on unfavoured districts.
The main agent for Government policy is the Manpower Services Commission, which, as every hon. Member knows, is engaged on the huge task of delivering the Government's jobs and training programmes, in which we continue to innovate in a whole number of exciting ways. This is not the debate for me to continue to describe to the House what we are achieving under the restart programme, calling for advice about people who have been unemployed for more than six months, and steering them towards a job. Other initiatives include the many schemes in the Action for Jobs package, and the innovation of the two-year YTS, which guarantees two years good quality training to every 16 and 17-year-old who is unemployed after Easter this year. There is the new job training scheme which we are introducing and which I announced to this House recently.
However, it is relevant to point out that we are concentrating the whole package of employment and training programmes heavily on those regions where they are needed most. We are putting a strong regional emphasis into the work of the MSC. To illustrate that, I shall quote the figures spent on the MSC's programmes in the financial year 1986–87. In the south-east of England, the MSC spent £59 per head of the total work force; in the south-west, £121 per head—more than twice the southeastern figure—in Scotland, as much as £143 per head; in Wales £161 per head; and in the northern region £179 per head on our employment and training measures. That last figure is three times as much per head of the labour force compared to what is spent in the south-east. People do not appreciate how much the extremely ambitious programme of employment and training measures that we have announced is targeted on the more disadvantaged regions.
All over the country, not just in the regions, we are giving high priority to the inner-city areas. The centre of Bristol, which is a prosperous city, the centre of London, which is a wealthy city. the centre of Birmingham, and other inner-city areas pose a whole range of social, employment and other problems. Inner-city areas have been made priority areas for our employment and training programme places. In the inner-city partnership areas alone, my Department and the MSC expect to spend £175 million in 1986–87 on employment and training measures.
In the same inner-city partnership areas, the enterprise allowance scheme, which supports self-employment, is expected to attract 4,500 people in 1986–87. We are still working at improving the delivery of training programmes for inner-city residents. We have discussed this problem with the MSC from time to time, and the chairman agrees with me that we should try to target the MSC's efforts increasingly on inner-city unemployed people.
In particular, we try to target more of the best employer-based YTS schemes on inner-city youngsters and ethnic minority youngsters. We are also seeking to tackle the higher rates of refusal to join YTS and early


leaving, which are sometimes experienced in inner-city areas. We must tackle that now that we can guarantee a two-year YTS for all young people.
We are planning to have a drive to generate good quality work placements that will improve the motivation of youngsters in inner-city areas over the next year. We shall probably open more drop-in centres for YTS entrants, and we shall make sure that the best quality of the Government's employment training schemes are delivered in the inner-city areas as well as elsewhere.
We are concentrating all the efforts of the Government in an innovative way, particularly in the eight task force areas designated under the inner-city initiative. These areas are pockets of deprivation, and we concentrate all the efforts of Government through the urban aid programme, the MSC programmes and the work of the Departments of Trade and Industry and of Education and Science and of the Home Office to see what can be done by bringing them together more closely and targeting them on the gravest problems in those eight areas. On top of that, we are spending a small sum of money, £8 million, to forward particular projects in line with the Government's overall policies. We are beginning to tackle, in a much more forceful way than has been attempted for many years, the problem of the imbalance of opportunities within our cities and regions.
We are also tackling the problems of those places where large numbers of people have been displaced from the older traditional industries as a result of change. It is obviously necessary to target effort and money on those. Our policy is not to pretend that the coal mines will reopen, that the steel industry will employ thousands more people or shipbuilding will again he a massive employer. We seek to provide training for the redundant and support the new business that is being attracted to areas most affected.
For example, we have backed British Steel Industry, which had £50 million until it became self-supporting. In the past six months alone, it has assisted in 4,600 job opportunites. British Shipbuilders Enterprise Ltd. was set up with £6·3 million-worth of public moneys, and I am told that, as of 23 January 1982, of the 2,412 people made redundant when the company was set up, some 710 people have found new jobs, 522 have applied for training courses—254 of those are training—16 have opened new businesses, 165 more applications have been received by the company for assistance to start up new businesses, and 240 people have opted to retire.
British Coal Enterprise Ltd. had had £40 million of public money by July 1986. Some £20–8 million had been committed by the end of December 1986, and that stimulated £106 million of investment from other sources. The job opportunities involved so far amount to 13,077.
Recently, we made a contribution to the Northern Development Company, set up to stimulate inward investment in the north. A total of more than £1 million has been put into that very encouraging example of cooperation between private business and local government, including contributions from the City Action team.
I hope that I have shown that the Government are producing more new ideas on the problem that the debate addresses than we have seen for many years. It has been successful. Over the country as a whole, unemployment is down by over 100,000 in the past six months, which is the biggest six-monthly fall since 1973. Over the past 12 months, unemployment has fallen fastest in the northern

region of England, in the north-west, in the west midlands and in Wales. The growth in total employment since March 1983 has taken place in every region of England.
The Government accept the reality of the problem, and are putting forward the most practical and realistic ways to tackle it. I contrast that with the attempts of all the Opposition parties to produce a credible policy of their own. Every time that they return to employment policies, all that happens is another attempt to produce new Mickey Mouse figures to which a veneer of policy is attached to try to make them appear credible.

Mr. Gordon Brown: The purpose of the debate is not merely to illustrate the problems of the regions and the inner cities, but to demonstrate how a solution to the problems of the regions and the inner cities is in the interests of the shires, the suburbs and the southeast. Further, it is to make the case for regional policy, not as a response to the social problems of the north, but as a response to the economic problems of the whole country. It makes no sense to any hon. Member representing any constituency that we have, in parts of the south, the shires and the suburbs, congestion, overheating, escalating house prices, skill shortages and pressures on the green belt, yet in the north we have wasted infrastructure, unused resources, record unemployment, urban deprivation, forced migration and depopulation in many areas.
It cannot be right that unemployment affects 1,500 men and women in some of the constituencies of the shires and suburbs—that is bad enough—but 15,000 in some areas in the industrial regions. It cannot be right that unemployment is 3 to 4 per cent. in some of the constituencies that Conservative Members represent, but over 30 per cent. in some of the constituencies that Opposition Members represent. It cannot be right that house prices are now twice as high in the south-east as they are in many parts of the north, that the population of the northern region will fall below 3 million by the year 2000, Scotland's population will fall below 5 million soon after that, and yet there are enormous problems with population congestion in the south.
Therefore, we advocate policies for investment in training—not the old-style regional policies to which the Minister was referring. They are not just policies for the provision of grants, sites, investment in education and training in the inner cities and regions; they are policies for locating research and development in some of the hardest-hit areas of the country and for investment in infrastructure—not just the physical infrastructure, but the technological infrastructure of the regions. We are saying that our policies for the north will not be at the expense of the south. Our policy is for balanced industrial development in the interests of the north and south.

Mr. Favell: rose—

Mr. Michael Fallon: rose—

Mr. Brown: I shall give way in a moment.
We heard from the Liberal spokesman for Wales, the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells), about the Liberal party's commitment to Scotland, Wales, the north, the south-west, the rural areas and just about every other part of the country. The Liberal party regrets the drift from north to south.
The commitment of the SDP to the north might be taken a bit more seriously if we had not seen so many of


its leading figures desert the north for the south. The president of the SDP, Mrs. Shirley Williams, has deserted Crosby in the north to stand for Cambridge in the south. The party's vice president, Mr. Bill Rodgers, who was a stalwart at one time in Stockton-on-Tees, is now after a seat in Milton Keynes, which he hopes to win.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: What about Willie Hamilton?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) is putting up a valiant fight and will be given all our support, but I would have advised him to stay next door to me in Fife, Central.
One of the SDP's founding members, Mr. Mike Thomas, is making the trip from Newcastle, East down to Exeter. The man who has travelled furthest of all, Mr. John Horam, the former hon. Member for Gateshead, has moved straight from the alliance to the Conservative party and, I understand, is looking for a safe seat in the south of England with the Conservative party.
I used to think that the initials "SDP" stood for "Still Divided on Polaris", and perhaps that is true, but I am reliably informed that it now means the "Southwardly-Drifting Party", and that is how it looks to many of us in the north.
We welcome the alliance's new-found enthusiasm for addressing the problems of the region. Although we are delighted to have it as a convert to our cause, I think that I should direct the attention of the House—[Interruption.] I think that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) may be silent in a minute. I think that I should draw the attention of the House to two policy statements that have been issued by the SDP and Liberal party over the last few months. The first was issued in July 1986, entitled "Partnership for Progress," and the second document was issued in January 1987, which was also called "Partnership for Progress" but with a new title that was bought from the advertising men, "The Time Has Come." The first policy document mentioned policies for the 1990s. It said:
Much of what the alliance wants to achieve in the field of social reform and public provision depends critically on our success in turning the course of the British economy. We are facing two formidable challenges. The first is how to put the unemployed back to work. The second is how to improve the long-term performance of the economy.
That was in July 1986.
In the meantime, we have had the publication of the Government's submission to the European regional development fund. We have had some controversy over the north-south divide. We have had the publication of the census of employment figures, and what do we find in the document "Partnership for Progress", which was published in January and is almost exactly the same document as the previous one, but with one major change? The first sentence about policies for the 1990s is the same, but instead of "facing two formidable challenges," it is now three formidable challenges. The alliance policy document says:
The third challenge is to reverse the economic polarisation of our nation.
Whilst I welcome the conversion of the alliance to a commitment to do something about the problems of the regions, it is tragic that such a commitment was

underplayed and barely mentioned in the policy document of last July. It is typical of a party that reacts to every twitch of the electoral swingometer.

Mr. Favell: A little earlier the hon. Gentleman was bemoaning the difference in house prices between the north and south. He said that in the south-east house prices were twice as much as in the north. They are probably three or four times higher than in my constituency. However, should not the hon. Gentleman be encouraging trade unions to take advantage of the lower house prices and cost of living in the north to negotiate on a local basis so that wage rates reflect those lower house prices and cost of living and to attract investment in those areas of high unemployment?

Mr. Brown: I do not know whether the Government or the hon. Gentleman want to deal with the consequences of the Government's policy—rising house prices in one area and declining house prices or stable house prices in another—or whether he wants to deal with the causes of the problem, to which I shall come in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has a common cause with the alliance on this matter.
The Paymaster General made a fairly controversial speech a few days ago, which he followed on Friday with an explanation or elaboration of what he said a few days before.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North was reticent when I asked him about the alliance's policy on regional wage differentials. In this excellently printed alliance policy document—not excellent in what it says—we are told:
We support an independent pay and review board for all the public sector which would, amongst other things, take into account conditions in local labour markets.
I wonder whether that means that the alliance is committed to a policy of regional wage differentials in the public sector, or whether it wants it in the public and private sector. I am reminded that the Liberal conference, in September 1985, came to exactly the same conclusion, except that it proposed an arbitrator when dealing with regional pay differentials. The arbitrators, it says,
would be free to approve higher settlements in the south of England than Scotland provided they were not inflationary and were likely to generate jobs.
That alliance policy suggests that there should be regional wage differentials imposed under an incomes strategy. We know that regional wage differentials exist at the moment, and I shall come to that when I talk about the Minister's policy, but the alliance is saying that wage rates should be set under its centralised incomes strategy with a view to achieving differentials and settlements between different parts of the country. The alliance will have to tell the voters in Scotland, the north, Wales and other parts of the country precisely what the difference will be in the wages that people can expect to earn under this decentralised incomes policy.
The Paymaster General has been sent in to bridge the regional divide. Unfortunately, his only solution seems to widen the regional divide by a policy of differential wage settlements which would certainly discriminate against the north. We had from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the familiar litany of statistics about employment, unemployment, grants and public spending, but he invariably concentrates on the silver lining and ignores the dark clouds on our economic horizon.
For example, the Paymaster General told us that employment was rising everywhere, and he gave us the impression that things were booming in Yorkshire and Humberside because of an increase in the number of self-employed people. He did not tell us that the only verifiable estimates of the number of self-employed people come from the 1981 census and that he will not be able to give us another absolutely accurate figure before the 1991 census. His figures are based on a sample of less than 1 per cent. of the labour force survey. If the self-employed people to whom the Minister referred actually exist, they are so enterprising that they appear to be unknown either to the Inland Revenue or the Department of Health and Social Security which should be collecting national insurance from them. We must examine carefully and question the figures produced by the Minister.
If the Paymaster General looked at the more reliable figures for the increase in the number of employees since 1983, and even if I discounted, for the purpose of the argument, the number of people in second jobs, and the fact that there is an element of statistical projection in the figures, which allows the Minister to forecast the number of employees six and 12 months from now, and if we ignored the fact that many new jobs have been created by splitting existing jobs into two, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would find that 80 per cent. of the additional employees since the last general election are in the southeast, the south-west and East Anglia. There is a clear regional divide.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If we read carefully through all the qualifying phrases upon qualifying phrases that the hon. Gentleman used before coming to his amazing conclusion, we find that he left out the self-employed and is apparently denying any assertions of an increase in the number of self-employed people. That enables him to come to his ridiculous conclusion.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are expecting about 300,000 people to take part in the enterprise allowance scheme and to receive advice and support in their new ventures as they go into business on their own? Does he think that they do not count? Does he join some of his hon. Friends in dismissing those people as being on a skivvy scheme? Does he accept that 300,000 people are being helped by the Government, in addition to the reliable estimates to which I referred earlier?

Mr. Brown: No one denies the existence of the enterprise allowance scheme, but I suggest that the Minister's overall figures for the number of self-employed people are based on a form of statistical projection and on a sample from the labour force survey that is so small that nobody could take it seriously.
If the Minister looks at the figures for the number of employees—the figures in the Employment Gazette—he will find that more than 80 per cent. of the additional number since June 1983 come from the three regions of the south, and that in Yorkshire and Humberside, in the north-west and in Scotland and Wales the numbers of employees have fallen since June 1983.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If the hon. Gentleman rejects the evidence drawn by professional, independent statisticians from the labour force survey, what evidence does he have for his assertion that there has been no increase in the

number of self-employed people over the past few years? Is there any evidence to support that extraordinary proposition?

Mr. Brown: I am questioning the Minister's figures. He and Lord Young spend a great deal of time on television telling us that more than 1 million jobs have been created since June 1983. They do not give us the qualifications that ought to be made about, for example, second jobs. Many people are counted twice in the statistics, and the Minister never mentions that fact. If we were given all the qualifications, the country could see clearly whether the Government's policies are working.
If the Minister holds to his view that there is a recovery, will he look at manufacturing output and investment figures, because the fate of our industrial regions and of many of our inner cities depends on those figures?

Mr. Don Dixon: Is my hon. Friend aware that between 1979, when the Government came to power, and 1984 investment in manufacturing industry in the northern region fell by 42 per cent.?

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that the Minister will explain why no other manufacturing country has seen such a huge fall in manufacturing investment since 1979. Will he explain why in the five years after 1979 for which figures are available manufacturing investment fell by about 17 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole, but by 30 to 40 per cent. in Scotland, the north, Wales and the north-west?
If the Minister looks at the real economy instead of at the economy that he has invented for us, he will find that manufacturing output has risen in every other industrial country in Europe and in every other industrial country of a comparable size to Britain, but manufacturing output here is still below the 1979 level. Manufacturing output is down by 4 or 5 per cent. in Britain as a whole, but by 10 or 12 per cent. in some of our most important industrial regions.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate has been running for one hour and eight minutes and we have another one hour and 14 minutes, of which I understand 25 minutes will be taken for the wind-up. Not a single Back Bencher has yet spoken. Could you use your good offices to ensure that there is adequate Back-Bench time in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am afraid that I have no power to do that, but I appeal to the House, arid particularly to Front-Bench speakers, to remember that this is a very short debate and many hon. Members are hoping to take part.

Mr. Brown: You will find, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while the Government and the alliance parties will seek to make two Front-Bench speeches each, the official Opposition will make only one Front Bench speech.
I want to examine the problem of infrastructure and investment in the regions and inner cities. If the Minister is right when he says that there is a recovery, why is investment so low? Why is output still below the 1979 level?

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that productivity has grown enormously recently and has


grown 6 per cent. more in this country than in the other European countries to which he referred? It will continue to grow at about 6 per cent. over the next year.

Mr. Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the problem that I have been outlining. When manufacturing output is declining, as it has declined throughout the past seven years, increases in productivity mean only that less is being produced by a lot fewer people. They do not mean that manufacturing output is rising or that the economy is doing a great deal better and, as we have seen from the figures, they certainly do not mean that manufacturing investment is encouraged to rise.
The Minister talked about a number of infrastructure problems in various parts of the country, but, when asked about them, he gave the impression that there were excellent roads in the north-west—as if there were no other problems to be faced. Has he looked at the Government's submission to the European regional development fund and at what was said in the name of Ministers? Does he realise that in that submission the Government said about Greater Manchester that roads, sewers, the water supply, railways and building stock were
in a state of decay, resulting in a serious situation in which some aspects of the infrastructure are in a state of collapse."?
The submission also mentions frequent sewer collapses and dangers from pollution. The volume for Greater Merseyside deals with infrastructure problems and says that
the scale of dereliction will increase and serve to reduce yet further the potential for regeneration.
With regard to the west midlands, it says that
the cumulative effect of under investment in apprenticeships and in modern plant machinery will affect the ability of the region to take advantage of any increase in demand.
That is the position in the regions. I could give the Minister quotations from the reports referring to the inner cities.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North mentioned the problems of the south-west. He should know that in the submission to the European regional development fund it was stated that 50,000 jobs must be created in the south-west. It also said:
Vital improvements in water supply, sewerage and sewage treatment infrastructure in Devon and Cornwall are essential if new industries are to be encouraged and tourist facilities improved.
The report also mentioned the lack of serviced industrial land.
The reports were written not by me, the Labour party or the parties of the alliance. If the reports are correct—we believe that they are—what are the Government doing about the problems of under-investment and infrastructure? They must be dealt with before our inner cities and industrial regions are regenerated.
If the Minister will not listen to me, will he at least listen to some of his colleagues who have made similar points and who have urged the right hon. and learned Gentleman to act? He should listen to his right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) whose book was published today. He clearly states:
We must not allow present inaction to continue. A look around our major cities and town centres should be enough to convince us that this Government can no longer stand by on the other side.
The right hon. Gentleman describes the danger of
a physical and social collapse
in Britain. He continues:

There is no case to justify underprivileged parts of England sliding into further despair apparently supposed to fight their corner unarmed against the forces of industrial decline.
If the Minister refuses to listen to the right hon. Member for Henley, perhaps he will listen to the right hon. Gentleman's arch rival the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). He has made a plea similar to that made by the right hon. Member for Henley:
The gulf between the different parts of the country is unjust and divisive. I believe that we can and that the Government should do more to help.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls for a comprehensive review of regional policy and for the creation of development agencies in important areas of the country.
Perhaps the Minister will be more influenced by the Tory Reform Group. I notice that the Minister remains a patron of the group. Despite what the Minister has said this evening, in its statement on the Budget, published only a few days ago, the group states:
The job census recently published by the Department of Employment demonstrates afresh how wide is the difference between the prosperous areas of the country and the rest—a deepening north-south divide with unpredictable electoral consequences.
Does the Minister agree with that? If so, will he support the proposal that it put to him and to members of the Cabinet that, if they have £5 billion to spend—we know that they have— that money should be invested in housing, infrastructure, the urban programme, proper training and a decent regional policy?
We have enormous and rising unemployment in Scotland and huge unemployment problems in the rest of the country and in Wales. What sense does it make for the Government to halve regional aid and regional development grants since 1979? Indeed, they propose to halve them again.
In the past few months the Government have given us an exercise in blame shifting. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has suggested that the problems of the north are self-inflicted. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security has said that the problems in the north are caused by ignorance, not poverty. That claim was made just at the time when a submission had been made to Europe stating that the Health Service in the north was grossly underfunded and that that was causing many of the health problems in the region. The Secretary of State for the Environment has suggested that the problems are due to Labour councils.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will get his chance, and I think that he should listen to what has been said by some of his Ministers.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has had 26 minutes.

Mr. Brown: The Minister spoke for as long as that. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will finish my remarks in just a few moments.
Over the past seven years the Government's solution to the north-south divide has been to allow it to widen and then to deny that it exists. When figures have been produced from a whole series of reports, the Government's response has been to blame the inhabitants. That has been illustrated clearly by the Paymaster General's attempt to blame the workers in the north for the problems of industry in that region. He has suggested that, in some


way, wages must be reduced. Which employers and which companies have told him that if wages were reduced in the north they would move there?
Previous Tory Governments have at least been concerned about the regional problem. Some Conservative Prime Ministers have sought to do something about it. Until this Government, no Government have sought to deny the existence of the regional problem and to respond to that problem by cutting available aid and trying to blame the inhabitants.
The country knows that there can be no true prosperity if 4 million people are paid to produce absolutely nothing in the regions and inner cities of this country. The country is also aware that there can be no proper recovery for the entire country unless there is a recovery in traditional industrial regions and the inner cities. It is upon that issue that the Labour party will win the next election.

Mr. Churchill: I must protest most vigorously at the grotesque abuse practised by the Front Benches in this short debate. They have hogged no less than 1 hour 40 minutes and have left just 40 minutes for all the Back Benchers to participate.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has been fulsome in discussing the alliance and Government policies for regional development hut, understandably, was most reticent about letting us have sight of Socialist policies. Much has been made about the north-south divide. It is a reality. It must be addressed, hut it must not be exaggerated. Speaking from experience, I must say that I have never known any Government to tackle the problems of the north-west of England with more vigour or more success than the present Government. It is easy to dwell on difficulties but I prefer to address the positive side, and there are many.
In relation to the north-west, present trends are moving firmly in the right direction. By September last year 32,000 more jobs- over and above everything that had been lost—had been created since June 1983. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General has said, unemployment is falling faster in the north than in the south.
I have had the privilege of representing a large part of Trafford Park, which remains the greatest industrial complex in the United Kingdom, for the past 17 years. Throughout those 17 years we have never had a Government who have done so much or acted so effectively to regenerate Trafford Park and to assure its future as the one who are now in office. We do not need lectures from Socialists on regional policy. Their policies were an unmitigated disaster for the area that I have the honour to represent and for all the established industrial areas of the north. Their policies encouraged industry to move to greenfield sites and to abandon the traditional industrial areas. This represented a flagrant waste of resources and had the effect of blighting established industrial areas. It was the epitome of a counterproductive regional policy.
Under the first Wilson Government, more than 15,000 jobs were lost in Trafford Park, including 8,000 at GEC alone. Under the second Wilson Government, that trend continued. A further 5,000 jobs were lost just across the Manchester ship canal at the Irlam steelworks when that plant closed, but the then Labour Government, supported and kept in office by the Liberal party, pursued a policy

of unremitting hostility towards Trafford Park and Manchester. This was carried out with the ruthless gerrymandering of industrial development certificates by Ministers.
I shall cite only one instance. Kelloggg, in my constituency, wanted to expand its production facilities in Trafford Park. It was told by the Socialist Government that it could not do so in Trafford Park, even though there were vast areas that were devastated in which jobs had been lost on a colossal scale. Kellog asked "Where should we go?" The Government replied, "Why don't you go to a place called Huyton?" I wonder whose constituency that was.
The Socialist Government, and the Liberals who propped them up in office, have done nowt for Trafford Park or the people of Manchester over any of the years that I have been in this place. On the other hand, the present Government have granted the area assisted area status. Secondly, they have established an enterprise zone, which has attracted many hundreds of jobs into the area. Thirdly, they have designated Trafford Park, the Salford docks and Irlam to be an urban development corporation, an area of about 3,000 acres. It is estimated that the£160 million that the Government are earmarking for the regeneration of the area could lead to the creation of 15,000 new jobs. I should like to thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Government as a whole for what they are doing to regenerate a crucial part of Britain's industrial heartland.
It is not only Trafford Park that has benefited. Whereas Socialists operated a restrictive policy towards Manchester International airport, the Conservative Government have been liberal. They have encouraged the expansion of the airport, which is now the fastest-growing major airport anywhere in Western Europe. Last year it handled 7·6 million passengers, an increase over the previous year of no less than 24 per cent. Manchester is now served by scheduled airlines to twice as many destinations as two years ago, since when El Al now flies to Tel-Aviv, Singapore Airlines to the far east, American Airlines to Chicago, Air Canada to Toronto and British Airways to Hong Kong and a host of European destinations. No fewer than 20 new scheduled destinations were added last year alone.
There is a need to sustain the momentum of expansion and we need Government assistance to do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Paymaster General can relax because what I am about to ask for does not require any additional money. Under the Bermuda II agreement, which was negotiated by the Lib-Lab Government in 1977, Manchester was excluded as a United Kingdom gateway airport while Heathrow, Gatwick and Prestwick were so designated. Thus a United States airline wishing to route through Manchester is discouraged by the United States authorities from even applying for the route because they have been led to believe that the British Department of Transport will demand reciprocity of concession from the United States. I understand that two major airlines—Pan American and North-west Orient—have expressed firm intent to come to Manchester, but unless the Government take a positive arid enlightened attitude, as they have in previous months, towards the expansion of Manchester International airport in line with the Government's 1985 airports policy White Paper, the discussions will come to nothing and an important opportunity will be lost. I recognise that it might not be


the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend, but I hope that he will convey the message to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
The success of Manchester International airport is a key factor in the success of the north-west generally. The development areas of Barrow, Runcorn, Warrington and Trafford Park—all points of expansion in the northwest—make great play in their publicity material in attracting overseas developers by drawing attention to the excellent air services that are provided by the airport. I have no doubt that those services represent a key factor in the situation whereby at present no fewer than seven major new hotels are being built or are in the pipeline in Manchester.
British Aerospace at Woodford only last week secured important new orders for the 146 airliner, safeguarding 3,000 jobs at Woodford, a further 3,000 at Chadderton and creating 200 new jobs at the Woodford facility.
All is not gloom and doom in the north-west and those who suggest that it is do no service to the region they represent. Today in the north-west we are seeing tangible signs of progress towards a brighter future.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: To assess the full damage that the Government have done and continue to do to our country it is necessary for the House to consider each of the two nations that the Government have deliberately created and that are persisting. The first of the two nations is suffering from desperate congestion, appalling pressure on its public services, vast waiting lists for urgent hospital treatment, bad transport services due to the congestion, and all the other symptoms of overheating. The other nation is suffering, as the House knows so well, from unemployment, which is not falling by anything like the extent the Government claim and which last month increased. It is also suffering from deprivation, low earnings and all the symptoms of a decadent economy.
The result of those two nations is to present those who are trying to preside over the economy of the country with an appalling problem, which is simply a recurrence of the problem that Labour Governments equally failed to face, namely, measures that would revive and expand industry in the deprived areas seriously overheat parts of the southeast of England and those areas where there is virtually full employment.
We have heard nothing from the Government tonight, in spite of the invitation we gave them in our motion, to suggest how they are to deal with the intractable problem of two separate nations drifting further and further apart. The problem is not tackled at all by the Paymaster General, the number two Minister at the Department of Employment, coming to the House to flagellate himself for his juvenile indiscretions and to talk about the errors of previous Governments in their absurd broad-brush treatment, as if the alliance had been in government recently. Some of us have been condemning broad-brush treatment of the regions since first coming to the House. The reason why we insist that the regions and the local areas must have more say in measures to regenerate themselves is the poor record under both Governments of the twin parties of centralist power.
In Labour's case one shocking waste of resources was the appalling white elephant, the Humber bridge, which goes from nowhere to nowhere. It is our contention that if the project had been debated in a Yorkshire and Humberside assembly, the sensible people of that region would have said, "No Humber bridge at this stage. Let us have instead a dozen new hospitals or 50 new schools." The Tories were the begetters of another of northern England's greatest white elephants, the Kielder dam. It was constructed at enormous public expense and the devastation of beautiful countryside, and what is it worth now? The water is not needed for any part of this country and the latest ploy to try to make some use of that Tory white elephant is to start selling water to Hamburg. That is a manifest symbol of an economy which is mismanaged and which is, in some respects, out of control.
The Paymaster General performed as an identikit Minister. No one would have known which of the twin parties he belongs to. He stood there trying to justify the whole thing by explaining at great length how much money the Government are throwing at the problems of deprivation, as if the mere spending of money is any advance in dealing with the problems. He had the cheek to do that although the Audit Commission has just condemned the profligate way in which the Manpower Services Commission has been spending some of the taxpayers' money, in the great propaganda exercise of merely throwing millions of pounds at problems without solving them.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) was careful to say virtually nothing about the Labour party's approach to these problems. The alliance is bitterly disappointed at Labour's approach to the problem of mass unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, which is manifest. An all-party Select Committee, in two reports, unanimously said that to deal with long-term unemployment it is essential that the measures should be specifically targeted on the long-term unemployed. The Labour party shrinks from doing that. We can only speculate about the reasons for that—the pressures on it from outside the House. But it is a fact that when a draft Bill was carefully prepared to give effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Employment that measures should be specifically targeted on the longterm unemployed to give each a guarantee of 12 months' work, the Labour Front Bench attitude was distinctly cool and negative.
The alliance wholly supports, and has done in the House over recent months, the suggestion by the all-party Select Committee on Employment that every person who has been unemployed continuously for a long time should be offered a guarantee of a 12-month job or a serious training place. We regard with contempt the fact that the Paymaster General and his master the Secretary of State in the other place provide only one in five of the long-term unemployed with a place on all their highly expensive special schemes. How can that be justified when we have this appalling army of so many hundreds of thousands of people who have been continuously out of work, losing morale, skill, health and often hope?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman keeps pouring scorn on the expense of our programme. How can he equate that with the proposals that will be presented tomorrow by the alliance, that
We will make sure that public spending creates jobs through exports and investment"?


That is not the method that the hon. Gentleman described. The alliance proposes that
In the first year gross public spending would be increased by £4·9 billion".
What is that but throwing money at the problem?

Mr. Wainwright: Not at all. We are careful to point out that the net cost of our proposals would be relatively small because we would put people back into genuine jobs, where they would earn full wages. They would pay income tax and more VAT because their households would be able to purchase more, so they would begin to make a contribution to the economy.
I should like the Paymaster General to face up to the example of Sweden, where long-term unemployment virtually ceases to exist because anybody who is continuously out of work for more than 300 days is immediately offered either a job or a serious place on a long-term training scheme. I cannot for the life of me discover why the Government neglect to learn from countries that have found a better solution to the problems than they have.
One of the consequences of the two-nation approach is that there are neglected opportunities in the regions where unemployment is so high. As a contrast, let us consider people waiting for urgent hospital treatment—I stress urgent treatment; not elective surgery, but a condition in which the GP has said that the patient must have treatment as a matter of urgency. The congestion that the Government have created in the south-east is such that health authorities such as West Surrey and North-East Hampshire, Riverside in the North West Thames area, and West Lambeth all have a very high percentage of people needing urgent treatment who have been kept waiting more than one month. Indeed, nearly 90 per cent of those waiting for urgent treatment in those areas have been waiting for more than one month. However, in the areas of neglected opportunities, the areas in which the Government do so very little, beds are standing empty and there are easy opportunities for receiving immediate treatment. Early treatment for an urgent condition can be found in such places as Scarborough, the Wirral, Durham and Bolton.
If I may switch from health to transport, the Paymaster General was eloquent about the superb installation of motorways spurring off the M62. That is fine, but there are so few goods vehicles using those motorways. [Interruption.] I can assure the House that I am a frequent user of those motorways and I deplore the fact that they run through a desert at the moment, due to the recession.
It is the alliance plea that the splendid infrastructure which was provided by wiser Governments than this should be put to use, and proper use should be made of what the taxpayer has provided in the past.
I want briefly to consider the effect on earnings. Nowhere is the problem of the two nations more clearly demonstrated than in the stark contrast between the level of earnings in some parts of London, especially the City, and the depressed earnings only a mile or two away in what the London chamber of commerce has aptly described as the "huge crescent of deprivation" in parts of north, east and south London.
We cannot expect to have a united country if such disparities in income persist and grow worse by the week within a very few miles of each other. That is a recipe for dividing the country which would make wiser past leaders

of the Conservative party pale with horror at seeing the country which they had worked so hard to unite being deliberately divided by misguided economic policies.
I believe that the alliance motion tonight is more than fully justified. I am sorry that it has been treated so flippantly by the Paymaster General. I hope at least that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry will have some constructive comments to make on our proposals when he replies.

Mr. Tony Favell: We have heard a great deal about the divided nation, in particular the north-south divide, this evening and for many months. For someone like me, who before 1983 rarely ventured south of Derby, there are clearly divisions. In much of the south there is a bustle that is sadly missing from parts of the north—although not all of the north. There is a gap which must be closed. The question is how.
The Labour party has suggested that that gap can be closed through more Government spending, more town hall spending, more council houses, more strategic planning—in fact, a great deal more interference and a lot more Socialism. The alliance suggests more Government spending, more town hall spending. more infrastructure—the alliance does not like to talk about council houses any more—more regional planning as opposed to strategic planning; in fact a great deal more interference and, it would appear to Conservative Members, a great deal more Socialism as well.
Let us consider what made the north great in the first place; how northern Britain became the industrial workshop of the world. That was not planned from Westminster and we did not rely on Brighton, Bournemouth or Bristol.
Liverpool achieved greatness through the entrepreneurial spirit of the Liverpudlians; Manchester achieved greatness through the business acumen of the Mancunians; and Glasgow achieved it through the industry of Glaswegians. That greatness certainly did not come from municipal socialism—that had not been heard of in those days—and it did not occur through state charity. Throwing money at that problem is not the answer. Surely we have learnt the lesson of Liverpool, where more aid has been spent per head of population than anywhere else in the country. State charity is not the answer.
The north needs a return to the industrial ethos upon which its greatness was founded. First, we must ban all talk of the post-industrial society. Those words should be forgotten. No matter how smart the City of London is or how great the attractions of Britain are to the overseas tourist, we shall always depend on industry to pay for the things that we want and need. The Opposition, who glory in gloom, would have the world believe that the north is industrial dereliction. Far from it. Of course, areas which put all their eggs in one basket, such as shipbuilding, need Government support to set out their stall to attract new enterprise. But many areas have diversified and look forward to the future with confidence.
Stockport is a northern industrial town where unemployment is not just less than the regional average; it is less than the national average. We have many successful industrial firms. We have Ferranti Computers, supplying fine computers and radar systems, which was recently awarded a large contract by the Ministry of


Defence. Williams Fairey Engineering does important work for the nuclear power industry and, incidentally, was this year's national brass band champions. United Biscuits is a large employer exporting favourites such as digestive biscuits, Penguins and jaffa cakes not only throughout Europe but the world. Simon is an engineering group employing 16,000 people worldwide whose shareholders recently followed the example of the shareholders of Pilkington and rejected an unwelcome takeover bid from a City consortium. As my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) said earlier, at British Aerospace in Woodford—also in Stockport—200 jobs have been created to produce the HS146. I remind the House that that company delivered the Nimrod AEW airframes on time. The failure of the south-east led to the cancellation of the Nimrod programme.
Let us have no more talk of the northern industrial spirit being extinguished.

Mr. Piers Merchant: Is my hon. Friend aware of a report, published today, entitled, "It is not really like that", commissioned—perhaps surprisingly—by the BBC and written by a quasi-academic called Fred Robinson, which contrasts with the worthy remarks that my hon. Friend has just made and is a diatribe in despair and an exercise in uncontrollable pessimism without a single constructive suggestion? Does he agree that such a catalogue of gloom is exactly what we do not need if we are to attract investment, industry and jobs to the north and the other deprived regions? Instead, we should sell all the good points of those regions.

Mr. Favell: I can only think that this man is a Socialist. The Socialists of the north have done nothing but whinge and whine for the past 10 years and have repeatedly sold the north short.
We need a few things from the Government, and here is my shopping list. First, we need cheap energy. The Government have done much for coal, but they must not flinch from ensuring that we have our share of nuclear energy. Apart from anything else, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. employs 16,000 people in the north, and last year the nuclear industry placed contracts worth £300 million with companies in the north-west.
Secondly, people must be made aware that if—God forbid—we had another Labour Government, trade union militancy would reawaken. Thanks to the Prime Minister, much has been done to restore industrial peace, but it could easily be lost. We have all seen what the militant trade unions did to the Liverpool docks, but things are much better now, even in Liverpool. Recently, I visited Ford's Halewood plant in Liverpool with the Stockport chamber of commerce. The plant manager told us that, five years ago, we would have had a hostile reception from the labour force, but now the reverse is the case. People came up to us and told us how much better industrial relations were and how proud they were of their product and of what was being achieved. At Halewood the workers are making a fine product at a keen price with a reputation for reliability. No wonder Ford is now our largest home car producer.
While we are on the subject of trade unions, could my right hon. and learned Friend please sort out the Civil Service unions? They are hogging the secretarial and

clerical work in the south. Where is the justice, let alone the sense, in paying more for poorly-qualified typists in London when there are lots of lasses in the north who could do the job twice as well at greatly reduced cost? What has happened to the programme that was introduced in the 1970s to disperse the Civil Service to the regions? By now we should have 16,000 Civil Service jobs relocated to the regions but so far I think that we have no more than 6,000 dispersed.
Will the Government continue to put down the argument that there is something demeaning in training or retraining? To persuade an unskilled youngster to go on the dole rather than to train is irresponsible, if not wicked. Two years on, what chance has that young person at an interview if he is up against another youngster who has completed a two-year YTS?
Finally, and most important of all, will the Government take an axe to the crackpot councils of the Left? We cannot afford to leave it to chance or, for that matter, to the Leader of the Opposition. Nothing does more harm to the north than such councils in those Victorian town halls which were once monuments to hard work and success but are now citadels of Socialism and despair. That axe is the master key to the north-south divide.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the speediest way to resolve the problem to which he has rightly drawn attention is to introduce proportional representation in local government? That would ensure that extremism of the type that he mentions is wiped from the face of the map.

Mr. Favell: I shall give the answer in a moment, but it is certainly not proportional representation. Local government in these northern strongholds is no longer under the control of those who pay for it. That is the problem. Over half the house owners in Manchester receive housing benefit. What interest do they have in controlling town hall spending? Making people pay at least 20 per cent. of their rates will help, but that is not enough. We need people to pay 100 per cent. of their rates, and then we must adjust welfare benefits to reflect the national average of the cost of local government.
There is no point in local government knowing that its voters will be reimbursed for the whole of local government overspending. It would bring the Militant chickens home to roost if they were answerable to the whole of their electorate and not just to a part of it. Some local authorities would not then spend money on equal opportunity officers for lesbians, guides for children on how to deal with the police, and the setting up of nuclear-free zones, as is happening in Manchester. What sort of image of that once proud city does that present to the world? Who will rush to invest in a place that indulges in nonsense like that?
The good, sound sense of the northerners has not deserted them, but they need help to rid themselves of Left-wing extremists who, with their high-rating policy, have done so much to knock the stuffing out of industry, and who paint such a poor picture of what for me is the best place in the world. My constituency is the neighbour of Manchester but is free of Marxist domination. In my constituency young couples can buy a two-bedroom terrace house in a nice district for £17,000 or £18,000, yet


their rates are two thirds of the rates charged in neighbouring Manchester, where it takes twice as many people to empty the dustbins.

Mr. Gordon Brown: Before the hon. Gentleman finishes his speech, will he comment on the speech made by the president of Manchester chamber of commerce who said about local government, "We in the business community are making a far better job of partnership with local government than Westminster seems to be able to do"?

Mr. Favell: The president of Manchester chamber of commerce should be ashamed of himself. I agree entirely with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Prime Minister who gave the president of that chamber a real trouncing following that speech—which was what he deserved.
Every Friday I cannot wait to get back to the north, with its friendly people, its humour, its sport, its open countryside, its great musical tradition and, of course, its beer. With a little help to rid ourselves of the Marxists, the militants and the Trotskyists, once again we will be the envy of the overcrowded, overwrought, over-priced south.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell).
Traditionally, this debate is about the north-south divide. I wonder how many people realise that the gross domestic product for a person in Cheshire is higher than it is for someone in Kent or Hampshire; that unemployment in our northernmost English constituency—Berwick—is lower than the national average; that it is lower in Halifax than it is in Hastings; that in northern industrial Barrow-in-Furness it is lower than in soft and privileged Brighton; and that in Northampton itself, unemployment is lower than it is in Southampton. More sophisticated attenders to this debate say that it is now an east-west divide, but if they look across at the growing prosperity in south Wales they will feel that that is wrong also.
On closer analysis, the problems of poverty, the material, economic and social problems in this country, are worse where Socialism is strongest. The paradox is that, where there are Socialist councils, there are higher levels of local expenditure and that where there are higher levels of local expenditure there are higher levels of unemployment and higher levels of crime.
There is a simple connection between Socialism and deprivation. Where Socialism is rampant, business confidence is low. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to do something about the loony Left. Why does he not do something about it where his own home is and there the council intends to raise his rates by £21 a week? In those three London boroughs that changed hands at the last local elections, business ratepayers face an increase in business rates of about 60 per cent. How are they supposed to provide jobs in those circumstances?
Behind this motion are implications that we should have a regional policy, more regional expenditure. The implications are that the problems are in the distant provinces—but that is not the case at all. We need analysis before we can come to a solution.
The major economic problems are in London, in our capital city. Six of the 14 constituencies with the highest

levels of unemployment arc in London-Bethnal Green, Hackney, South and North, Peckham, Bermondsey and Vauxhall. The average in those constituencies is that a third of the men are unemployed and drawing benefit. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Scandalous -] Yes, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why it is scandalous. I draw his attention to the definitive Audit Commission report on London and the problems of Socialism. It sets out eight rotten boroughs in London controlled by the new Left, the shock troops of Socialism, the pioneers of perverted politics, run by the clones of those who, after the next election, will form the majority of the parliamentary Labour party, small though it may be in this House.
That report compares those eight rotten boroughs with eight similar boroughs controlled by less lunatic Socialists and leavened with three Conservative councils with similar profiles and problems. Within London, compared with the control boroughs, those rotten boroughs spend 50 per cent. more per head of the population—£7 per week per household. They employ 35 per cent. more staff. Between 1980 and 1986, their central staff increased by 18 per cent., while others went down by 14 per cent. Staff vacancies—a measure of an efficient, well-run organization—are three times as great in the rotten boroughs. All this and inferior services—Socialism in action.
Comparing the rotten boroughs with the metropolitan authorities, the cost per child in care is over twice as great. The cost of local authority services is three times as great. The management cost per dwelling is twice as great. The arrears of rent are three times as great. One in five rents are not paid in those inner London areas. They are concerned about homelessness, yet it takes them twice as long to relet their houses as it takes anybody else. Those are shocking statistics.
In Brent in the last three years, over three quarters of the senior staff have left their posts. Eight pounds in every £100 of inner London rates is uncollected. While the real costs of local government over the last three years have decreased, in the rotten boroughs they have risen by 20 per cent. London is prosperous, yet in these Socialist areas there are massive problems.
As for unemployment, after massive expenditure on education, ILEA spends almost twice the national average, yet side by side with wealth and job opportunities. Why? In some part, the devastation is caused by the effects of Socialism on business and commerce, but that is not the whole story. If one sows the seeds of Socialism, if one heavily fertilises the ground with public money. if one waters it with publicly financed propaganda, a crop will grow—a crop of grudge and dependence.
If we set up a race relations industry and make people feel that they are discriminated against, they will feel racially discriminated against. If we set up anti-police committees to tell people that the police are against them, they will be anti-police and crime will rise. If people are told that they are entitled to certain standards whatever their own efforts, endeavours and abilities, we will bring dissatisfaction and grudge.
We all recognise in our constituencies the neighbouring households as we go canvassing. One is spruce and immaculate and another dingy and in disrepair. The one is welcoming and the other disgruntled. As often as not, the second household has been infected by Socialism.
There is a musical in London called "Les Miserables", a line of which runs:
At the end of the day you get nothing for nothing.


The tragedy is that Socialism preaches that one can have paradise without effort and that if one is not provided for, it is someone else's fault. Socialism breeds dependence. It tells people to sit on their backsides and complain. The tragedy is that we do not have a north-south divide. Many of our people's lives are destroyed because, in this Conservative country, they are living under the yoke of Socialism. I tell my hon. Friends, with the local elections coming up, they should get that message across loud and clear because our people depend on us.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was another rendition of Marlow's theorem of the correlation between Socialism and deprivation, but I suggest that Conservatism and neglect also go hand in hand. The hon. Gentleman has not contributed to the debate.
No Conservative Member has said what should be done about the problem. The Paymaster General, probably wisely, did not refer to the Government amendment. He probably felt embarrassed reading out
that the United Kingdom has benefited from six years of uninterrupted growth
as his introduction to a debate on deprivation. He would not want us to draw attention to the fact that manufacturing output is 4 per cent. below what it was when the Government came to power.
We hear from Conservative Members a repetition of selective statistics which ignore the problem. The Paymaster General, I suspect deliberately, misunderstood the alliance stance. He suggested that we want to return to old-style regional policy. We want nothing of the kind. We believe that there is a need to recognise the problems. That is our first obstacle with the Government—they refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the problem.
I shall not quote the unemployment figures, as we all know them, but I should like to pick out a few other statistics which demonstrate the scale of the problem. In the south-east, there have been 20 manufacturing job redundancies per thousand. The equivalent figures for the north and Scotland are 69 and 58 respectively. For all sectors, there have been eight jobs per thousand lost in the south-east, 28 in the north and 21 in Scotland. That is a serious discrepancy.
My hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) and for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) mentioned house prices. The average house price in Yorkshire and Humberside, at £25,989, should be compared with the average in Greater London of £57,816. That too shows a serious discrepancy.
Since 1976, defaults and arrears among private home buyers have increased eight times and the number of homeless people has gone up to more than 100,000. That is an indictment of the Government, but they do not acknowledge the deprivation.
The Cambridge university department of land economy has estimated that, out of the 900,000 jobs that are likely to be created in the private sector during the next 10 years, at least 420,000 will be in the south-east of England. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the fact that the forecast population in Scotland will

drop below 5 million by the end of the century, while the population of the southern half of England will increase by 1·5 million.
The Government's remedy, as articulated by the Paymaster General, is that people should move out and accept lower pay. The first problem with that is that the Paymaster General is talking nonsense about the disparity in wage rates. Anybody who considers the figures knows that the reality is that average earnings in the regions and provinces are lower than in the south-east. In Greater London, for example, average earnings for men are £255 a week, compared with £191 in the east midlands and £193 in the south-west.
The differences in house prices, land costs and wages exist, but all that has happened is that London is still sucking in the talent, while the regions are failing to cope with the problem. The selective statistics given by various hon. Members representing constituencies in the north of England do not disprove that point.
We also acknowledge that, within the broad division between London and the south-east and the rest of the country, there are divisions within each region. We can all list areas of low unemployment in the north and of high unemployment in the south. In London there is a clearly identified crescent of deprivation. Within walking distance of the Bank of England, for example, are the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Islington and Southwark, including Bermondsey, which have between 25 and 30 per cent. unemployment.
The analysis of those real problems shows that London and the south-east are creating jobs and sucking the brightest and best talents out of Scotland, Wales and the regions, but that they are failing to provide the jobs that the local people of London need. The Government are totally failing and refusing to address that problem.
The United Kingdom needs to get away from its one-centre economy and the black hole down which the city of London sucks everything, because of which other parts of the country simply cannot get the backing and the resources that they need to focus on their own enterprise.
Why can companies such as NCR, formerly National Cash Register, operate its worldwide headquarters from Dayton, Ohio, Wang computers from Lowell, Massachusetts, and cities such as Houston and Dallas, and Alburquerque in New Mexico experience the growth of corporate headquarters, whereas in this country the idea of establishing corporate headquarters in Aberdeen, Newcastle, Cardiff or Manchester is regarded as being off the map and out of touch? That is the sort of attitude that we must get away from. The attitude of our American competitors is the one that we need.
The Government simply sit back and say that they are prepared to let the market operate in the way in which it does and that if they were re-elected and continued their policies, the problem would somehow resolve itself. The answer is that it most certainly will not. The Paymaster General and, to the extent that he spoke about policy, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East seemed to imply that central direction was the right answer. The Paymaster General stated that central Government would decide what was good for people in the regions and for investment outside, or indeed inside, London. The excuse given by Conservative Members was a catalogue of attack on Left-wing Socialist authorities. I agree with Conservative Members that Left-wing Socialist local authorities drive out enterprise and cannot face up to the


problems. However, we in the alliance are prepared to do something about it and to reform the system so that those people cannot get control.

Mr. Favell: rose—

Mr. Bruce: No, I shall not give way. I do not have the time.
The Paymaster General and the Government are not prepared to introduce the necessary reforms—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bruce: I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), but I have very little time.
We in the alliance are prepared to face up to those problems because we believe in the people of this country; we believe that the people of Newcastle, Manchester and Bristol, as well as of the rural areas, are capable of making their own decisions and that they better know what they can do in their own areas, if they are given the backing, resources and freedom to make their own decisions. That is something that the big brothers in the Labour and Conservative parties will not allow them to do.
We propose the establishment of regional development agencies to make the decisions that are at present being made by central Government. [AN HON. MEMBER: "In the south-east?"] Certainly in the south-east. All regions should have an opportunity to focus their enterprise and to back their decisions, rather than have Whitehall telling them what is good for them. I find it extraordinary that Conservative Members say that the system is unworkable. It has helped other countries to be more successful. We are not talking simply about moving jobs and wealth, but saying that if we adopt this system, we shall help to stimulate more growth, enterprise and jobs—the sum total will be greater for the whole of the United Kingdom. There is plenty of evidence to show that that can be the case.
Recently, the Financial Times carried a review of regional development and venture capital. It pointed out that, too often, enterprises in the regions did not receive backing because no one in the City has enough local knowledge to give them backing. If we had people on the ground with that knowledge who could draw the funds and back the enterprises, we could get a great deal more for the United Kingdom. There is evidence to support that in the operation of enterprise agencies and regional development corporations. More should be done to back such enterprises and to ensure the development of new opportunities in the regions.
We agree with the Government that small businesses and the self-employed have been an important source of new employment; although the figures are not clear, we believe that they will be important in future. However, we question whether the enterprise allowance scheme is the best way of ensuring that. There is no check on how many schemes survive and on the extent to which they draw from others. We need agencies to follow those matters through. We notice that the lion's share of the BES is going to the south-east. Clearly, regions do not receive their share of the finance available.
When the Government choose to attack the alliance, they would do well to consider that, after seven years, the Government have reached a plateau of 3 million

unemployed plus 1 million people on the type of schemes that they greatly disparaged at the start of their period in office. There is no sign that they have any strategy for reducing that total figure or for ensuring that deprived areas have resources and backing to deal with their problems.
Tonight we heard precious little from the Labour party, despite the 28-minute speech from the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East. One and a half minutes of that one speech from the Labour party related to Labour's policy, but that was probably one and a half minutes too long. Neither of the hon. Members who are apparently coordinating the policy has yet managed to agree on what it is and we are not sure whether there will be a strategy. Clearly, the argument within the Labour party Is about which state sector should provide the jobs.
We in the alliance are prepared to back enterprise and we recognise that development corporations and enterprise agencies have a significant role to play. However, we are also prepared to recognise the discrepancy that exists, not just between different regions and nations, but within them. That is why we propose, first, to give a job guarantee to the long-term unemployed; and, secondly, to provide a selective cut in employers' national insurance charge for unemployment black spots and travel-to-work areas and to provide in those same areas incentives for recruitment of the long-term unemployed. Those specific measures would help to tackle the imbalance and we commend them to the Government.
The Government will live to rue the day when they decided not to trust people on the ground in their communities to make decisions which affect their enterprise. The Government have chosen to pull power to the centre and to set up central Government agencies to determine centrally who should get what.
I should have thought that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) might have been present. In our last debate on this issue, he made an extraordinary proposal, which boiled down to the establishment of a series of regional district commissioners on the old Indian imperial model, who were to be appointed by central Government. Though his book sales may be great, he is not prepared to get to grips with the problem, any more than any other member of the Conservative party.
I commend the alliance motion to the House. The other two parties have shown themselves shamefully out of touch with the problems of the regions in terms not only of their analysis but of their solution. The people know that they have to look elsewhere for a solution. They cannot trust the Labour party, and the Government have said that they have no policy.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Giles Shaw): I hope that the alliance has enjoyed the second of the two debates that it has elected to have today. It is appropriate that it should be discussing an issue which, as we have seen it unfold over the past couple of hours, has shown the great fragmentation in the alliance. It is appropriate for a fissiparous group such as the alliance that it should have selected this debate. No discussion about regional policy is free from the claims for special attention for this or that region or problem, for this or that reason. In most speeches there was an understandable special pleading.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) drew attention to the important disparities between affluence and unemployment, between major cities and decline, and so on. His proposals and the motion show that the alliance would like to see development agencies set up in each of the regions. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) also referred to that. Development agencies are one of the points that have been widely debated.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House would be wise to contemplate what a development agency is. It is not, as suggested by the hon. Member for Gordon, a coming together of individuals in the region concerned to try to preside over a development policy of their own. A development agency is set up under an Act and has central Government power, taking away much of the development arrangements in the regions. It meets entirely on its own, without any particular regional element. It is an agent of Government and operates in that way in the Scottish Office under the aegis of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, and in the Welsh Office under the aegis of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. That is what gives development agencies their power and prestige abroad. To suggest that all 334 travel-to-work areas or other regions should operate on a statutorily based system is a recipe for chaos and confusion, and the alliance must recongise that before it does anything else.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), in his substantial address to relatively few shareholders, spoke about what the Labour party would like to do. Clearly, he was convinced that the main problem was dealing with manufacturing investment. He made special reference to the ERDF proposals in Brussels, in which he is well versed. He has read the 17 volumes and knows all about them. He will recognise that, with his remarks about Merseyside and Manchester, he was quoting the words of the Labour councillors for Manchester and the Labour, or not-so-Labour, councillors of Liverpool. That provides him with a reasonable opportunity to say that the Government are talking with forked tongue. He knows that the Government have to assemble, collate and present, or none of the proposals would be allowed to get ERDF funds.

Mr. Gordon Brown: rose—

Mr. Shaw: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 28 minutes.
The important feature of our debate since then was the eloquent testimony of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who rightly showed what can be done when a region gets assistance through urban development corporations and structures to enable the regeneration of industrial activity. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell), in his brief speech, rightly called for something positive, such as cheap energy supply, and he will no doubt be delighted with the CEGB's recent reduction by 6 per cent. of its tariff to bulk users. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) correctly put the whole problem into perspective. Where Socialism has been rampant, one will not find much chance of industrial energy and

development or enterprise. [Interruption.] If that is the case, the hon. Gentleman probably has a cure for the ills of regional disparity.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) surprised me. He was clearly confused about the values of infrastructure. On the one hand, he took to task the Humber bridge. I can understand that, because I well remember Mrs. Barbara Castle making a rash promise in the midst of a by-election at Kingston upon Hull, North, and the Humber bridge duly appeared. The hon. Gentleman took to task the Kielder dam which, as he should have known, was primarily developed to secure opportunities for industrial development in Teesside and Tyneside, admittedly at a time when the oil price had not collapsed and when the plastics and chemical industries were at a high degree of employment. The concept was right—to serve the regional dependence on high water?
using industry.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley was worried about motorways. Clearly he has not been on the M62 recently. Perhaps, since he is retiring at the next election, he does not use the M62 very much, and need not worry about the lorries. However, those of us who do are a bit choked up by what we find on the M62.
The central issue, turning back to manufacturing investment—which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East raised—is the economic activity of the country. If the Government pursue policies which create economic activity and which believe in growth and enterprise, the consequences will steadily improve. Following the traumatic years of decline, after 1973 we had structural decline and rampant inflation. The lack of competitiveness of British industry and its products was pricing them out of markets worldwide and there was a substantial area of structural decline.
That has changed since 1983. Manufacturing investment has risen in real terms on average by more than 20 per cent. In the regions manufacturing investment has risen by 28 per cent. in the north—that includes the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and Humberside—in Wales by 28 per cent., the west midlands by 35 per cent., the east midlands by 18 per cent. and by 22 per cent in Scotland. Since 1983, we have seen a substantial increase in manufacturing investment. That has happened as a result of the Government's determination to ensure that the economy is receptive to industrial growth and development. Manufacturers and investors are looking for a stable economic policy and a Conservative Government who will provide policies that are conducive to industrial development and growth, and to see that the policies of previous Labour Governments have been swept away with all the central intervention, controls, restraints on capital and, above all, diktat by trade unions, which determined, more or less, what wage rates would be in the light of the threat of major industrial disruption.
The investment climate today is infinitely better for regions to benefit from the economy. I accept that it is slow and that there has not been a sufficient replacement of structural industries-shipbuilding, steel, coal or many of the other aspects of heavy engineering which have been centred in some of our regions. The Government are determined to speed up that process. It is because we have restricted development areas and assisted areas of the regions in the greatest need, and because the percentage of


the work force being covered in the north is now 70 per cent, of people who live in assisted areas, that regional policy is beginning to work.
We have, by changing the policy from capital-based to job-based, made a significant difference to its effectiveness. That is the way in which we must ensure that regional policy develops. It will be slow, but it will be steady. Ultimately, that depends on having an economy which responds to the needs of industry and provides a stable context in which there can be growth without inflation, encouragement to develop, wages which are determined by market rates and consumer satisfaction based on the quality and competitiveness of British products.
If we are able to achieve that—we shall do that by a third term in government—we will have demonstrated beyond doubt that the only thing that stands between regional disadvantage and the nation is a Conservative Government who are dedicated to making Britain great again.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 176.

Division No. 113]
[10 pm


AYES


Barnes, Mrs Rosemary
Kennedy, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Bruce, Malcolm
Lamond, James


Buchan, Norman
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Maclennan, Robert


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Clarke, Thomas
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dixon, Donald
Pike, Peter


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Godman, Dr Norman
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Haynes, Frank
Wainwright, R.


Howarlh, George (Knowsley,N)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Mr. James Wallace and


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Mr. John Cartwright.


Johnston, Sir Russell





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Cash, William


Amess, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda


Ancram, Michael
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Tom
Chope, Christopher


Ashby, David
Churchill, W. S.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baldry, Tony
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Benyon, William
Cockeram, Eric


Best, Keith
Coombs, Simon


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, John


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Cormack, Patrick


Blackburn, John
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cranborne, Viscount


Bottomley, Peter
Crouch, David


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Durant, Tony


Bruinvels, Peter
Evennett, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Burt, Alistair
Fallon, Michael


Butcher, John
Favell, Anthony


Butterfill, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Carttiss, Michael
Fookes, Miss Janet





Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David John


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Franks, Cecil
McQuarrie, Albert


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Major, John


Galley, Roy
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Marland, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marlow, Antony


Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Gow, Ian
Mather, Sir Carol


Gower, Sir Raymond
Maude, Hon Francis


Gregory, Conal
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Mudd, David


Harvey, Robert
Murphy, Christopher


Hawkins, Sir Paul (N'folk SW)
Neubert, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Hayward, Robert
Norris, Steven


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Onslow, Cranley


Hickmet, Richard
Osborn, Sir John


Hind, Kenneth
Ottaway, Richard


Hirst, Michael
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Pawsey, James


Holt, Richard
Pollock, Alexander


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Powley, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raffan, Keith


Jackson, Robert
Rathbone, Tim


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Renton, Tim


Jessel, Toby
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Knowles, Michael
Stern, Michael


Knox, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Latham, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Lawrence, Ivan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Warren, Kenneth


Lester, Jim
Wheeler, John


Lilley, Peter
Whitfield, John


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wood, Timothy


Lord, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard



Lyell, Nicholas
Tellers for the Noes:


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd, and


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Question on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes that the United Kingdom has benefited from six years of uninterrupted growth; that over the last six months United Kingdom unemployment has fallen by 100,000; that employment ha s increased substantially since 1983; and that vacancies are at their highest level this decade; commends the efforts of the Government to develop a modern economy which is offering new types of opportunity; recognises in particular its work in launching the most extensive training programme in the country's history, and


welcomes its commitment to the regions, underlined by carefully targeted investment and assistance; and further calls

on the Government to continue with its present policy of seeking to spread throughout the country the economic conditions that bring prosperity and jobs.

Representation of the People

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.
This draft Order in Council gives effect to the final recommendations of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England following an interim review of 40 parliamentary constituencies in England. If the draft is approved by both Houses, it will be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for promulgation.
I turn to the form of the order. Articles 2 to 12 substitute the constituencies in the schedule for the constituencies that presently exist. Article 1(3) provides for the order to come into force 14 days after it is made. The changes to the constituencies will take effect at the next general election. Any by-elections in the meantime will be held on the existing boundaries.
The review which gave rise to the draft order was the third interim review to be conducted by the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for England since it completed its general review of constituencies in 1983. Since that general review there have been a number of changes to local government boundaries which have resulted in the county, district or ward boundaries following a different line from the constituency boundary. The commission decided therefore to conduct a number of interim reviews to remove these anomalies.
Though the House is considering 40 constituencies, the commission reviewed 42. When the proposals were published in September 1986 there were objections to the proposals for the constituencies of Reading, East and Wokingham. These have been the subject of an inquiry and will feature in a separate report. With two other exceptions the remaining proposals did not attract any opposition. The exceptions were two objections to the proposals for Warrington, South and Halton, which were subsequently withdrawn. The commission therefore decided to confirm its draft proposals as its final proposals, and these are given effect in the order. In all instances the changes proposed are the minimum necessary to realign the constituency boundary with the altered local government boundary.
One measure of the extent of the changes effected by the proposals is the number of electors involved. The largest number of electors affected is nearly 4,000, who will move from Horsham to Crawley. Other relatively large-scale changes are the transfer of about 1,300 voters from Arundel to Shoreham, and around 1,900 voters from Warrington, South to Halton. The remaining changes affect between one and 400 electors. In some instances, including my own constituency of Grantham, no elector is affected directly. I hope that the House will approve the order.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I thank the Minister for the brisk and informative way in which he dealt with the substance of the order. Perhaps the House would permit me to say that I have a special interest in the order because it includes the Hertfordshire, West

constituency. When I had the honour to become the first Labour Member of Parliament for the former Hemel Hempstead constituency, which is part of the Hertfordshire, West constituency, I wrote on occasion to the boundary commissioners urging upon them the sense of changing the name of the constituency to Hertfordshire, West. It was not until I came second, which is not as much fun as coming first, that the boundaries were altered and the commissioners saw the good sense of the proposal. I am sure that it was right because it was quite wrong, even in those days, to impose the name of the new town of Hemel Hempstead upon the small towns and villages which helped to make up part of the constituency.
I could, but I will not, wax lyrical about my fond memories of Aldbury and Wigginton, Ashridge and Cupid Green— there is many a story or poem in that— as wards of the Hertfordshire, West constituency. However, I shall content myself by agreeing with the Minister that the changes that the Boundary Commission has come up with, as far as I am aware, make sense because, as best as the commission is able, it is right that the boundaries of the local authority should be contiguous with the boundaries of the parliamentary constituency.

Mr. W. Benyon: I should like to direct my remarks to part IX of the order, particularly to the constituencies of Mid-Bedfordshire and South-West Bedfordshire. Those two constituencies border my constituency of Milton Keynes, and my constituents are unanimous in their admiration of the way in which the Members of Parliament for those two constituencies conduct themselves in dealing with the interests of their constituents. They are also impressed by the speed with which the Boundary Commission has dealt with the particular changes.
My constituency is the fastest growing in the United Kingdom. In the 1983 election it had just over 70,000 electors and it now has 98,000, an increase per annum of 5,000. I remind my hon. Friend that when the last division of the constituencies took place the base year was 1976, and the final answer was brought in in 1982. If those circumstances continue in the future I shall be representing 150,000 constituents before the next division takes place. I do not worry about that but my constituents ask me whether there is something wrong with the procedure that we adopt in revising constituencies, or whether Members of Parliament should he paid proportionate to the amount of people they represent. There would be no increase in Government expenditure because it would be an average, some of us would get more and some less.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: I simply want to welcome the order because it brings local government boundaries and the parliamentary constituencies into line. In the case of the boundary between Hertfordshire, West and Hertfordshire, South West, the electors in the portion due to be transferred have, for the past two years, been transferred for local authority reasons but not for parliamentary reasons. It has been thoroughly confusing to them at election time and when writing to their councillor or Member of Parliament.
Although the delays have been brief in some ways, despite the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon), it seems


curious that the changes can come into effect for local government purposes in April 1985 but two years later for parliamentary purposes. I wonder whether the Minister can look into that to see whether there is any way in which procedures can be speeded up. I welcome the nearly 200 extra constituents who will come into Hertfordshire, West because they will enjoy, in common with the other people of that area represented in the past by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), a sense of community and of pride in the area's achievements, economic and cultural.
I realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes was a sympathiser for proportional representation, but I always thought that that was to do with the way that people vote. Now that I know that it is to do with the way that Members of Parliament should be paid, I am sure that there will be a rising tide in favour of proportional representation in the future.

Mr. Peter Pike: I support the principle of the order because it is right that, wherever possible, when there is a minimal change in a district or borough boundary, the parliamentary constituency boundaries should be changed so that they are conterminous with that boundary.
Like the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, West (Mr. Jones), I am concerned about the delays in the changes that sometimes occur. I have a vested interest in changes that do not come under this order. I hope that the Minister will say what other orders will come before us, which will take similar action to deal with similar situations. For example, there are some changes in the county of Lancashire, and my borough is affected. I hope that that order will be put before the House before the general election. If not, during the next Parliament I would represent a small number of people living in a different borough from the other 99 per cent. It is easier for the people if they know that the boundary is the same for the parliamentary constituency as for the borough. Thus confusion can be avoided.
While I support the proposal, I hope that the Minister will give us an idea of when the expects to lay further orders before the House.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I lend my support to that of other hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate for the proposal that is before the House, but I should like to follow what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and invite the Home Office Minister to respond to what he said and what I should like to add.
A report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs on the redistribution of seats has been laid before the House. It would be for the benefit of all of us if, instead

of debating late at night these small and straightforward orders, we had the opportunity to discuss the much more important issues of how to overcome the problems of great inconsistencies between the sizes of constituencies. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, I have a constituency that is growing extremely rapidly. While none of my constituents has, as yet, offered me the option of extra pay to deal with the extra problems—nor would I want to accept it—they are being under-represented in the county of Wiltshire, and other counties such as Hampshire are similarly affected.
The Select Committee came forward with some thoughts but no recommendations. If it were given the opportunity, the House would like to follow those thoughts and perhaps add some recommendations of its own. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to that point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Not tonight

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to thank the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and my hon. Friends for the support that they have given to the draft order. With regard to delays, the review into the boundary recommendations that we are considering tonight was announced in February 1986. As you will see Mr. Deputy Speaker, it has taken about a year to get to this final stage.
The hon. Member for Burnley asked what other reviews are being undertaken. On 23 December last year the Boundary Commission for England gave notice of its intention to review 55 parliamentary constituencies and the Welsh commission gave notice of its intention to review 21 constituencies in February 1986. A number of inquiries are currently being undertaken.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, said that it would not be right for me to comment on a possible response to the Select Committee on Home Affairs report. However, might I say that it was a very valuable report and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary would wish to make a response in the near future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987, which was laid before the House on 23rd February, be approved.

ESTIMATES

Resolved,

That this House agrees with the Report [3rd March] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE

Ordered,

That Mr. Terry Davis be discharged from the Joint Committee on Private Bill Procedure and Mr. Ken Weetch be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Garel-jones.]

Grammar Schools (Warwickshire)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: It might be helpful if I mention that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) will be using some of my time to make a contribution to this debate. I have previously advised my hon. Friend the Minister, who is to reply, of that fact.
I am concerned about the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire, and specifically in Rugby. It will help my hon. Friend the Minister if I tell him that the Labour and alliance-controlled Warwickshire county council has set up a working party to examine secondary education in the eastern and southern areas of Warwickshire. My hon. Friend will recall that it is now official Opposition and alliance policy to phase out grammar schools and it is certainly the intention of the Labour party to phase out grammar schools within two years.
I put it to my hon. Friend that that does not augur well for a fair decision in Warwickshire based on an impartial assessment of the facts presented to the working party. My hon. Friend will recall that Mrs. Shirley Williams, in the days when she was known as "Shirl the pearl," was responsible for the infamous Education Act 1976 which sought to destroy the grammar schools. That lady has now moved to another party, but it is significant that she has taken her philosophy with her and that the Labour party and the alliance remain committed to the destruction of the grammar schools. I find it most disappointing that those two parties are now hell-bent on destroying part of Britain's heritage.
You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are about 150 grammar schools in England and Wales. They cater for about 100,000 pupils. The quality of education in those schools is frequently not equalled elsewhere. It is particularly interesting to reflect on the fact that in philosophies as divergent as China and Germany, in France and the United States, selective education has been retained.
I want now to turn to Warwickshire and specifically Rugby. In the mid-1970s, the then area education officer in Rugby surveyed parents, seeking their opinion on the desirability of change. About 65 per cent. of parents then expressed the view that the present system of grammar and high schools should be maintained. I am unaware of any major change in public opinion since that survey was carried out. The only change of which I am aware is in the political control of Shire hall at Warwick.
The driving force, therefore, for change in Rugby's secondary schools is not educational; it is blatently political, and that is a poor reason for destroying proven schools.
In that connection, my hon. Friend will have noticed an early-day motion which states:
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take fully into account the strength of local support for grammar schools when any proposals for their abolition are submitted; recognises their influence on educational standards; and recalls that the much praised education system in Germany consists of the equivalent of grammar, technical and secondary modern schools.
So far, more than 60 hon. Members have signed that early-day motion.
In a speech in his constituency on 7 December 1985, my hon. Friend the Minister— the speech makes excellent reading—said:
In an article by Professor Anthony Flew, New Society, 17th November 1983, we can see quite clearly that, measured in terms of university entrants, working class children are actually worse off under the comprehensive system than they were under the old selective system, and worse off even than they were in the 1920s.
Again, I quote from the same excellent speech:
The National Council for Education Standards concludes from their study of the 1981 and 1982 results that better examination results are associated with the selective system of schools, whether it be a fully selective system of grammar and secondary moderns, or a mixture of selective and comprehensive schools…The proportion of school leavers achieving 5 or more 'O' levels and one or more 'A' levels in England rose during the 1950s and the 1960s, but then levelled off and only in the last few years has risen slowly again. But if I look more closely still, I find that it is the results of the independent schools that brought about that rising pattern.
The Minister's comments and the NCES findings are borne out by the figures from the Warwickshire county council. It is significant, if we compare the percentage of pupils obtaining five higher grade results at O-level in each of the four education areas of Warwickshire from 1979 to 1985, that the eastern and southern areas come out best. Those are the areas which have maintained selective education. That is not a coincidence. I must stress that those are overall figures which include all secondary education in each of the areas. The inescapable conclusion is that, using examination results as a bench-mark, the present system benefits more pupils than does a single comprehensive system.
It has been suggested that the difference in examination results between Rugby and, for example, the central area of Warwickshire is caused by the fact that more pupils in Rugby are entered for examinations. If that is the case, it suggests that children in Rugby, with its combination of high schools and grammar schools, have better education and examination opportunities than those in the neighbouring comprehensive system.
That is not an argument for change. The majority of parents have confidence in the present schools. Parents know that grammar schools provide a ladder of opportunity for those from less well-off backgrounds. In addition, in the high schools of the eastern area, there is a safety net that ensures that pupils can transfer at the age of 16 to grammar schools or to the college of further education to take their A-levels. A clear safety net exists which enables pupils to leave the high schools and to take A-levels.
It is extraordinary that, at a time of some financial constraint, Warwickshire county council can contemplate such a major change for so little reason. If funding is available, it should be used to improve existing schools for the benefit of our children.
It is sometimes argued that there are good social engineering reasons for introducing comprehensive education. Social engineering does not rate highly on the lists or agendas of most parents, and in any case the social mix which occurs within a grammar school is one of the keys to its success. That must be contrasted with the situation in many areas where parents vote with their feet and decide to move to make sure that their children are within the catchment area of a comprehensive school considered to be better than its neighbours. That seems to be a social engineering at its worst.
The Coventry Evening Telegraph is one of our excellent local newspapers. In this evening's issue there is a report of a visit by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government to Stratford-on-Avon. The report says:
Dr. Boyson said people from many backgrounds had gone through grammar schools.
Not only is the grammar school serving them but it's also serving the community.
People had the opportunity to come through to the highest standards".
That is the opinion of my hon. Friend and I certainly subscribe to that view. I suspect that my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford-on-Avon and for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) also subscribe to that opinion. It is important, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give clear weight to it when he replies to the debate.
I should now like to draw attention to a significant local publication. The fact that it came out only once should not reduce its importance. The publication, "Rugby Labour Herald", is dated January 1983. I suspect that this is both a first and last edition. There might be some significance in its date, because at that time the Labour party was in opposition on Warwickshire county council. Now it is in an unholy alliance with the SDP and the Liberals and is in control. The headline in that publication is "Education—what a mess!", and it reads:
Proposals to phase out the grammar stream provision at Dunsmore and to close Fareham will not only mop up the surplus places, but will lower standards and cut options.
It seems that at least in 1983 the Labour party was equating the phasing out of a grammar stream with a lowering of standards. Clearly, that is different from the dogma that is currently being preached, not just in Warwickshire but in the rest of the country.
I should now like to quote from the National Education Association newsletter. Under the heading, "Views of a young member," it says:
For the past three years I have been an active member of the Labour Party (and the Socialist Education Association). While my interest in education has increased over this period, so has my disillusion with the Labour party's attitude to the subject. This year I have not rejoined, partly as a result of the local Party's education policy, which you may find interesting. I am not opposed to all the comprehensives and 6th Form colleges—we already have comprehensives and a non-advanced further education college on the Wirral which cater for particular needs, and appear to do so adequately. But I am strongly opposed (like a majority of people in the affected area) to the abolition of all school sixth forms, coupled with an end to selection in an area where (i) people want it (ii) it works well, proved not least by examination results. Furthermore, as an active member at all levels in the Labour Party, it is clear to me that the decisions have been reached on purely political grounds, with little consideration for standards. The local Labour Party is experimenting with the futures of children for the sake of ideology!
One cannot help but believe that that young Socialist member speaks with the voice of experience, and I cannot help but agree with what he says. Change for the sake of change should be rejected.
I speak principally as a consumer of education. I have six sons, five of whom were educated at one of our grammar schools. I am familiar with both the excellence and the quality of education at Lawrence Sheriff school. I am anxious that other boys should benefit from that school, as mine have, and I oppose the wilful destruction of proven schools for doctrinaire reasons. I maintain that change for no other reason than political dogma is wrong.

Mr. Alan Howarth: My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) has a passionate concern for education standards which is as well known in Warwickshire as it is in the House. We should be grateful to him for introducing tonight's debate.
As my hon. Friend said, the threat to the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire is the product of ideological prejudice on the part of the Labour, Liberal and SDP parties in Warwickshire. My hon. Friend demonstrated that ideological attitude of the Labour party. But the Liberal party is also in this up to the eyeballs. The commitment to abolish selective education was in its manifesto for the last county council elections. Since then the Liberals have held the balance of power in Warwickshire. The schemes are being advanced against that political background. The Liberal spokesman is on record in last week's edition of the Evesham Journal as saying that the alliance is set to support the comprehensive scheme. That is of a piece with its faddish and ideologically prejudiced approach to education which can be seen in a range of ways.
We have witnessed the introduction of peace studies, the appointment of racism awareness advisers and now the movement towards the abolition of selective education in Warwickshire. This makes no sense. It certainly cannot be justified by an argument about falling school rolls. School rolls are falling in Warwickshire and all who are concerned about the education of children in Warwickshire recognise that there must be a constructive response. However, the comprehensive scheme proposed by the Labour/alliance coalition would result in comprehensive schools which are so small that, by reference to their own theory, the protagonists of the comprehensive system must find them inadequate. The argument about falling school roles certainly cannot apply in Stratford-upon-Avon where the population is growing.
If the Labour and alliance parties have their way, we shall have a botched-up scheme. Existing buildings will be adapted to unsuitable purposes, split-site schools will be introduced and schools will be split by arbitrary choice in terms of age range. It is not clear whether we shall have 11 to 16 federations with a separate sixth form, or whether we shall have a middle school where children who arrive at the age of 11 years, having established themselves, are expected to move to other premises at 13 years of age.
Whatever the variety of botch, it is certain that the cost will be massive. The ratepayers of Warwickshire are well disposed to paying to improve existing schools. They favour spending money to get rid of temporary classrooms and to ensure that there are enough books and equipment. There are some valid objects for expenditure in Warwickshire, but the ratepayers are not in the least interested in subsidising the ideological fantasies of local politicians.
We do not know the cost of the scheme, because no figures have been produced. The options paper was circulated a year ago—in April 1986—yet the detailed costings have not yet been produced.
Those of us who are inclined to be of a suspicious turn of mind are becoming increasingly convinced that the figures will not add up. Every time the figures are due to be vouchsafed, the meeting is deferred. We were led to expect that the figures would be produced in December,


and then again in January. Now we are told that there will be a meeting at the end of April, at which all will be revealed.
The costs are uncertain, but what is certain is that the proponents of comprehensivisation in Warwickshire are ignoring the excellence of the schools that they intend to abolish.
More that 75 per cent. of girls at Shottery girls grammar school, in Stratford, go on to higher education. Last year, the record of A-level passes was 89 per cent. and of O-level passes 88 per cent.
The school has an outstanding reputation and record of achievement in mathematics and physics. In mathematics, at O-level last year, of 64 candidates, 63 passed. There were 24 A grades and 30 B grades. Now, in the first year sixth, 25 girls are embarking on A-level mathematics courses and a significant number of them are interested in becoming engineers. In physics, at O-level, of the 64 girls who took O-levels last year, 59 opted for physics and 52 passed, 16 with an A grade and 20 with a B grade. This impressive record is not a flash in the pan.
Britain is not so well endowed with competent mathematicians and physicists that we can afford to jettison a school such as Shottery, which is a centre of excellence that recruits girls from all over Warwickshire. Yet the proposal being put forward by the education committee of the county council is that the school should become part of a split-site comprehensive where 11 to 12 year-olds should be catered for.
King Edward VI school in Stratford has an impressive record of achievement. More than 75 per cent. of the boys go on to higher education and the A-level pass rate is 89 per cent. The average pass at A-level is in 3·5 subjects and at O-level in eight subjects. Last year, five boys, and the year before, seven boys, went on to Oxbridge.
The school has recently raised £350,000 to build a new technology block. It has been achieved on the basis of strong local support and benefactions from old boys. It has been at no cost to the local authority. The school is voluntary aided and it has the option, if the comprehensivisation scheme is persisted with, to go into the private sector, but the governors and all concerned would be deeply reluctant to do that. It would be an act of educational vandalism on the part of the education authority to pitch out of the state sector a school with such resources, standards and traditions.
My hon. Friend mentioned the element of tradition to which we should have regard. King Edward VI school was the school at which Shakespeare was educated. It should be preserved as part of our heritage, and certainly not treated as the plaything of wanton, arrogant latter-day educational ideologues.
I am sorry to have to say that there is a third grammar school in my constituency which is under threat. It is the Alcester grammar school, which dates from 1600 and which continues to attract boys and girls from a wide area. In 1980, there were only 95 pupils in the sixth form. There are now 164, which is testimony to the popularity of the school. Once again, there are examination pass rates of 80 to 85 per cent. at O and A-level, and some 80 per cent. of the sixth form go on to degree courses at university or polytechnic. It is being proposed to destroy the school to create a split-site school, with all the teacher stress and administrative difficulty that that would involve.
The proposals that are being hatched by the education committee of Warwickshire county council ignore the

wishes of parents, pupils, teachers and governors. The consultation process that has been proceeding fitfully is widely regarded as a charade and it has been the source of considerable bitterness. The councillors in question are ignoring the preferences of families.
Those who send children to Shottery and King Edward VI happen to be prefer single-sex schools. Those families happen to prefer smaller schools for their children, because they see the merits of a school in which the children are known and they see that in smaller schools discipline can be easier to maintain. Those families prefer an arrangement whereby the sixth form is contained within the school. They see that the older children benefit from the continuity of teaching, benefit socially from the opportunity to take a degree of personal responsibility for the younger children in the school and benefit from a more formal structure than a sixth form college would allow.
Those parents are not putting forward arguments for the preservation of their cherished grammar schools, without any regard for other children in the country I hear no defence of the 11-plus as such. I believe that the schools in question would welcome a different system of assessment and more flexible transfer arrangements. Those schools have an honourable record of being willing to help others, especially in terms of sixth-form provision.
Although the parents, whose children are threatened by the proposed development have full consideration for the educational prospects of less able children in the county, they are absolutely rightly concerned for the future of their children. They believe that bright children equally have educational needs that should be considered. They happen to believe that the future of their children is best secured in a selective system, which provides a certain concentration of ability and the stimulus of the peer group, enabling the children to move on and achieve their potential.
The education committee in Warwickshire is in danger of destroying good schools that parents want, in the name of a theory experience of which in our country provides, to say the least, no evidence that it is in the pupils' best interests.
In conclusion, I cannot do better than to refer to comments made to me by Mrs. Janet Purves, chairman of the King Edward VI support group. As she put it, Warwickshire county council. cannot solve the problem of falling rolls in schools by abolishing schools of proven worth. The council should set out to improve standards in all schools and allow the grammar schools to continue to provide the education which the parents so obviously desire for their children.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on his success in obtaining this Adjournment debate on the future of grammar schools in Warwickshire. I congratulate both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) on the way in which they presented their case this evening.
As my hon. Friends know, when a local education authority wishes to establish, discontinue or make a significant change in character or significant enlargement of the premises of a school, or to change the organisation or pattern of provision of its schools, it must first publish proposals under section 12 of the Education Act 1980,


explaining its intentions. There then follows a two-month period during which statutory objections to the proposals may be submitted to the authority. A statutory objection is defined as one made by any 10 or more local government electors for the area or the governors of any voluntary school affected by the proposals or by any other local education authority concerned.
The authority has a further month in which to submit the objections it has received to the Secretary of State, together with its comments on the objections. If such objections are made, or if the Secretary of State has given appropriate notice to the local education authority, or if the school concerned is a voluntary school, the proposals fall to be decided by the Secretary of State and may not be implemented without his approval. The Secretary of State may approve the proposals, with or without modification, or reject them.
When the Secretary of State is considering proposals that have fallen to him to decide, he must judge each

proposal or set of proposals on its merits, taking into account both the case of those making the proposals and the views of those objecting to them.
My hon. Friends will, I am sure, appreciate that it is important for the Secretary of State to avoid prejudging the issues where such proposals are concerned. They will understand, therefore, that I am unable to say anything about the future of the schools which are the subject of this debate. I can, however, assure them that I have listened carefully to what has been said tonight, and that their points will be taken into account, along with any other representations which we may receive, before a decision is reached on any proposals which may come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Finally—and again I have to say "without prejudice" to this case—I wish to assure my hon. Friends that the Government are determined to preserve quality in education wherever and whenever it is to be found. As they know, I have said that on numerous occasions before, and I gladly say it again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.